Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 311 Records
-
1996 (5) TMI 51 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... ax on record, a material that should have prevented the officer from using the phrase by any stretch of imagination . Be that as it may, the position that under section 147(b) of the Act the proceeding can be reopened, the position that by virtue of the provisions of section 13(1)(c)(ii) and section 13(2)(h) read with section 13(3) of the Act, the exemption granted already would be unjustifiable, not having been disputed in any manner before any of the authorities, together with the position that section 13(4) providing in no uncertain terms that the trust as a consequence would lose all benefit of exemption under section 11 of the Act, it is not possible to consider otherwise. For the above reasons, the question posed 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 50 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land, Burden Of Proof ... ... ... ... ..... nspector the land was not assessed to land revenue at the time of inspection by him. And even if it were so that would hardly make any difference. The receipts do not show the nature of the land, they merely show that land revenue is being paid to the State by the person concerned, i. e., the assessee. To conclude, apart from the existence of mango trees there is no other evidence to suggest the character of the land as being agricultural and, therefore, it would not be wild to say that it is a case of no evidence. That being the position it must be held that the assessee has failed to discharge the onus and, therefore, the majority view taken by the Tribunal cannot be said to be correct either in law or on facts. Consequently, for the reasons stated above, we answer the questions in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee but make 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 49 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Being Heard, Delay In Filing Return, High Court, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... egative, question No. 1 has necessarily to be answered in the negative. In other words, it has to be held that the Tribunal was not justified in deleting the amount of interest. The reference is answered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. Before we part with this case, we would also like to mention that during the course of hearing it transpired that the assessee had filed an application for reduction/waiver of the amount of interest. Counsel for neither the Revenue nor the assessee was in a position to inform the court as to whether the same has been disposed of by the Income-tax Officer. We would, in the circumstances, clarify that our observations recorded hereinabove would not stand in the way of the Income-tax Officer and/or the appellate/revisional authorities under the Act to go into the merits of the claim and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, if not already done. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna.
-
1996 (5) TMI 48 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Transfer Of Case ... ... ... ... ..... a different entry then the consequential benefit even if not claimed, has to be given by the Income-tax Officer. There was no occasion for the assessee to have claimed the deduction alternatively when his first contention was duly accepted. The claim of investment allowance has not been pressed and was not legally permissible because before claiming the deduction it was necessary for the assessee to create a reserve of 75 per cent. in accordance with the provisions of section 32A. In our opinion, therefore, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow extra depreciation and investment allowance for dumpers which claim had not been put up by the assessee, before the Income-tax Officer but was for the first time taken by them before the Commissioner of Income-tax in proceedings under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1996 (5) TMI 47 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Transfer Of Case ... ... ... ... ..... it was observed by the apex court that when the profits or gains of a business for a particular assessment year are to be computed under section 10, the current depreciation allowance for the assessment year in question is deductible under clause (vi) of section 10(2), but the depreciation allowance of the preceding years would be liable to be taken into account only if, and to the extent to which, it is not absorbed by the total income of the assessee computed under different heads and chargeable to tax for those assessment years. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that for the purpose of determining priorities, the profits and gains should be reduced by current depreciation but not by carried forward losses or depreciation or investment allowance for the purpose of relief under section 80J. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1996 (5) TMI 46 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Motor Vehicles, Revenue Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... the interest in certain circumstances may have the same character as the principal sum is having, but it is not the truth in all circumstances. The interest here which is awarded was because of the provisions of section 110CC of the Act of 1939. Had there been no such provision the question of award of any interest would not have arisen and, therefore, it can be said that the award of interest is under a statute. The discretion is limited to the extent, mentioned in the said section and even for not granting the interest reasons have to be given. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the interest amounting to Rs. 5,757 awarded under section 110CC of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was a revenue receipt and thus exigible to tax. The reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this order be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for information and necessary action.
-
1996 (5) TMI 45 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land, Finding Of Fact, Held By Assessee, Household Expenses, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... venue has not been able to find any evidence except the assessee s own statement given under stress and strain and only giving an estimate on the basis of memory regarding an event which occurred about three years back. Hence, in our view, there is no reasonable basis to uphold these additions. Both these additions of Rs. 35,000 and Rs. 15,000 are, therefore, directed to be deleted. The decision of the Tribunal is, therefore, based upon the appreciation of the evidence and no question of law arises in the case. The Tribunal was, therefore, justified in refusing to refer the questions of law for the opinion of this court relying upon the ratio of the decision of this court in Addl. CIT v. Noor Mohammed and Co. 1974 97 ITR 705. Thus, the questions raised by the Revenue are purely questions of fact and no question of law arises in this matter. In the result, we do not find any merit in this application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act and the same is hereby dismissed.
-
1996 (5) TMI 44 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... cord that the assessee surrendered the income of Rs. 65,000 when it found it difficult to explain the non-disclosure earlier. However, as we are issuing the direction, as prayed, we do not find it proper to go into the details of the matter and express any opinion at this stage. On the basis of the factual position it remains to be seen whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no concealment of income and in cancelling the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Taking into account the factual matrix and legal position, we find that this application under section 256(2) of the Act deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, we allow this application and call upon the Tribunal to state the case and refer the aforesaid question of law for our consideration and opinion as expeditiously as possible. We, however, make no order as to costs. Counsel fee for each side is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. Transmit a copy of this order to the Tribunal.
-
1996 (5) TMI 43 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
False Return, High Court, Income Tax, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... would not be enough to raise an inference that they had abetted the filing of the false return. I find no good reason to disagree with that reasoning. Moreover, both these petitions, as such, deserve to be dismissed on the simple ground that these petitions under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code are against the decision by the sessions court in revision, and amount to second revision under the guise of a petition under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. For the reasons stated above, both these petitions stand dismissed. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, before whom the case is presently pending shall conclude the case within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners would be at liberty to lead such evidence before the trial court which they would think necessary to seek any relief from prosecution. The parties are directed to appear before the trial court, i.e., the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jind, on July 19, 1996.
-
1996 (5) TMI 42 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Business Income, Income From Business, Income From Property, Let Out ... ... ... ... ..... s income must have some nexus or be the result of some business activities and not merely the result of ownership. Merely because in the past the premises had been used for commercial purpose and the income accruing therefrom was shown and assessed as business, that cannot be the ground to hold that it will retain its same old character for all times to come. It is well-settled that each assessment year is a unit by itself and the liability of the assessee is to be determined with respect to the state of affairs as existing in the particular year. For the reasons stated above, in my opinion, the Tribunal was not correct in holding the income from the premises in question to be business income and assessing the same as such. I would, accordingly, answer the question referred to this court for opinion in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. On account of non-appearance of the assessee, I would make no order as to costs. AFTAB ALAM J.--I agree.
-
1996 (5) TMI 41 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Transfer Of Case ... ... ... ... ..... the order served on the appellants no reasons were recorded or communicated Held accordingly, that non-communication of the reasons in the order passed under section 127(1) was a serious infirmity and the order was invalid. On a perusal of the order, annexure P-19, we find that no reasons whatsoever have been recorded in the order by the respondent while passing order under section 127 of the Act transferring the case of the assessee from Gurdaspur to New Delhi. The order, annexure P-19, is against the provisions of section 127 of the Act and the law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Ajantha Industries 1976 102 ITR 281. The same being bad in law cannot be sustained. This petition is allowed and the order, annexure P-19, is quashed. However, we leave it open to the respondent to pass a fresh order, if so required, in accordance with law after giving due opportunity to the assessee before passing the order and recording its reasons in the order.
-
1996 (5) TMI 40 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Manufacture And Sale, Mercantile System, Sales Tax Liability ... ... ... ... ..... the liability of sales tax was ascertained or even admitted by the assessee during the years in dispute it is not entitled to the deduction claimed. According to the assessee even in the return which was submitted before the sales tax authority, no liability in respect of the sales tax has been admitted and the Board of Revenue at that time had decided the matter in favour of the assessee with regard to the taxability of the item. If because of any subsequent order the liability arises then it will be at that time the matter could be considered. The Tribunal has relied upon the order passed by it in respect of the assessment year 1975-76 which has already been reversed by this court on October 28, 1993 (see 1994 209 ITR 835) and, therefore, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the sales tax liability incurred by the assessee on turnover was allowable. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1996 (5) TMI 39 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Assessee Carrying On Business, Rate Of Depreciation, Transport Business ... ... ... ... ..... TR 201 (Raj), is on the application under section 256(2) of the income-tax Act and it was said that the Tribunal has not applied its mind to the facts and circumstances of the case as referred to in the statement of the case. Unless the question has been framed under section 256(1) the court cannot travel beyond what has been stated in the statement of the case. The question which has been referred was decided by the Tribunal on the basis of its decision given in the case of Manjeet Stone Co., against which this court has taken the view that the assessee is not entitled to depreciation at the rate of 40 per cent. In these circumstances, this contention has no force. Consequently, the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue and it is held that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 40 per cent. and not at 30 per cent. on the trucks and dumpers used by it in its business and also for plying them on hire.
-
1996 (5) TMI 38 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Application For Reference, Assessment Proceedings, Finding Of Fact, Penalty Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... r the head Profits and gains of business or profession . Section 37(3B)(ii) of the Act talks about running and maintenance of aircraft and motor cars. That shows that the expenditure to the extent of rupees one lakh on the maintenance of car will be allowed and over and above that 20 per cent. of the excess shall not be allowed as deduction in computing the income chargeable under the head Profits and gains of business or profession . Therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal does not appear to be well founded in the present context. Though the Tribunal has not made any detailed discussion, it has simply referred to the decision of the Bombay Bench of the Tribunal and then upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which does not appear to be well justified. Hence, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is not correct and we answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1996 (5) TMI 37 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Interest Payable, Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... he petitioner for the offence under section 276B of the Income-tax Act is bad in law. Learned counsel for income-tax, Mr. Sharan, contended that in view of the notification contained in annexure 5 of the supplementary affidavit, the prosecution is liable to be discontinued. On a consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it is an admitted position that the allegation is of delay in payment of tax of about Rs. 11,680. On calculation, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the interest would be less than Rs. 200. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the Union of India and also in view of the notification contained in annexure 5 of the supplementary affidavit, the continuance of the prosecution of the petitioners would be an abuse of the process of the court. In that view of the matter, this application is allowed and the entire proceeding including the order taking cognizance against the petitioners is hereby quashed.
-
1996 (5) TMI 36 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Account Books, Income Tax, Market Value ... ... ... ... ..... that is, roughly half of the prevalent market rate in the area. Admittedly, no reason has been shown by the assessee as to why the plot of land has been sold to her for half of the market rate. Nor any other reason has been shown to the Income-tax Officer at the time of assessment. Even, in spite of specific query, the assessee failed to point out any mistake/lacuna in ascertaining the value of the plot of land by the valuer. In these circumstances, the only reasonable inference that can be drawn is that the assessee has shown less amount in the account books and sale deed than the actual consideration paid. Considering the comparable cases and the facts of the case, we find no ground to interfere in the addition made under section 69B of the Act, 1961. In view of the above discussion, we find nothing wrong in the view taken by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, we answer the questions in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1996 (5) TMI 35 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Assessment Year, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... has arisen because of the agreement and the expenditure was actually incurred. It was for commercial considerations based on commercial expediency. The payment, in consideration of security deposits received, was allowable deduction. The provision which has been made by the company in view of the agreement entered into can only be considered as a legal obligation of the company to discharge its liability under the agreement which was for maintaining industrial peace. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was right in deleting the disallowance of non-lifting commission of Rs. 7,501. We are further of the view that the Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner deleting the disallowance of Rs. 15,003 on account of provision for bonus. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1996 (5) TMI 34 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure, Grey Cloth, Initial Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... f every kind by the assessee to any person, whether by way of provision of food or beverages or in any other manner whatsoever and whether or not such provision is made by reason of any express or implied custom or usage of trade, but does not include expenditure on food or beverages provided by the assessee to his employees in office, factory or other place of their work. The food or breakfast provided by the assessee to its employees in the factory and other places of working is excluded from the definition of entertainment expenditure and in view of the finding by the Tribunal that the expenditure was for providing tea and coffee to the factory workers in the factory, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in holding that the expenditure of Rs. 7,140 was not of entertainment nature. The second question is, therefore, answered in favour of assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this order be sent to the Income-tax Tribunal for information and necessary action.
-
1996 (5) TMI 33 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
High Court, Immovable Property By Central Government, Movable Property, Petition Against Order, Writ Jurisdiction, Writ Petition
-
1996 (5) TMI 32 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Additions To Income, Assessing Officer, Business Premises, Income Tax Authorities, Question Of Law, Sales Tax Authorities
....
|