|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 280 of 280 Records
-
1997 (6) TMI 20 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
High Court, Rectification Of Mistakes, Tribunal's Order ... ... ... ... ..... for the petitioner that the appellate order was vitiated on the ground that the Tribunal failed to discuss all the contentions raised by learned counsel before it and to give reasons for coming to the conclusion which it did. We apprehend that it is not permissible for counsel to raise this contention under section 254(2) of the Act. If learned counsel finds the order defective on this ground, the remedy lies elsewhere and certainly not by way of a miscellaneous petition under section 254(2) of the Act. This aspect was well considered by the Tribunal in the impugned order. It clearly held that it had not discussed the facts and the statements in detail as, according to them, the issue has been covered by the jurisdictional High Court decision in V. V. Trans-Investments (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1994 207 ITR 508 (AP). We do not, therefore, propose to interfere with the impugned order on this ground, either. For the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage.
-
1997 (6) TMI 19 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... ty of all the partners sharing the losses, then, the partnership cannot be said to be an invalid partnership, disentitling the firm to have registration. However, the Calcutta High Court took note of the observation of the Supreme Court in K. D. Kamath s case 1971 82 ITR 680, at page 691 which reads thus The above clauses also establish the right of each of the partners to share the profits and also to bear the losses in the proportion of their shares mentioned in clause (5). Placing reliance on the above observations of the Supreme Court, the Calcutta High Court held that a partnership in which there is no provision to share the losses, is an invalid partnership. With respect we record our disagreement in understanding the above observations of the Supreme Court, the way the Calcutta High Court did. For the above reasons, we answer the first question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is accordingly answered. No costs.
-
1997 (6) TMI 18 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, High Court, Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... ource of the investments. We find merit in the apprehension expressed by learned counsel for the assessee. The decisions referred to by learned standing counsel for the Revenue, viz., CIT v. M. Sreedharan 1991 190 ITR 604 (Ker) and Guduthur Bros. v. ITO 1960 40 ITR 298 (SC), have no application to the contentions raised in this case. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to give any direction to the assessing authority to consider the matter afresh by giving an opportunity to the assessee. In the light of the above, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We decline to answer question No. 2 as it does not arise in this case. Question No. 3 is answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1997 (6) TMI 17 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... an order passed under section 3(4) of the Act. Computation of income and determination of tax for a period which is questioned in an appeal is part of the order of assessment under section 143(3) of the Act which is made appealable. For the aforementioned reasons with respect we are in complete agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court and regret our inability to agree with the view expressed by the learned judges of the Punjab High Court. In the result, we reframe the question and answer the same in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The question is reframed as follows Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is correct in holding that the Income-tax Officer s order under section 3(4) of the Income-tax Act, is assailable in appeal against the order of assessment under section 246 of the Income-tax Act ? The reference is accordingly answered. No costs.
-
1997 (6) TMI 16 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, High Court, Interest On Refund, Law Applicable, Original Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... e relevant provisions of the Act, if it is found that interest was admissible for a given period to the assessee, then it was wholly inconsequential whether reference to a particular section is made or not or a wrong section has been referred to. It is well settled that wrong labelling of a section cannot be held to be fatal to the order if the power to pass the same is traceable to some statutory provision. (see Municipal Corporation of the City of Ahmedabad v. Ben Hiraben Manilal, AIR 1983 SC 537, pr 5). Therefore, we do not find the objection raised by learned standing counsel to be of any consequence. Considering the said facts and circumstances of the case, the question referred to us is answered in favour of the assessee though it will be applicable to only a part of the period and considering the judgment of the Supreme Court and our findings noted above, the Tribunal has to consider the application under section 244(1A) of the Act. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (6) TMI 15 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... be a Hindu undivided family shall have to be quashed with a direction to the former to redo the assessment in accordance with law after holding an enquiry under section 30(1) of the Act. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The order dated December 15, 1989, passed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer is hereby quashed with a direction that he shall conclude the assessment afresh after passing an appropriate order within the contemplation of section 30 of the Act after due and proper enquiry, in which the assessee and the adult members of the family shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. In case the Agricultural Income-tax Officer comes to the conclusion upon enquiry that the joint family status of the erstwhile Hindu undivided family continues, he shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders of assessment assessing the income of the assessee in that status. In the circumstances, however, there shall be no orders as to costs.
-
1997 (6) TMI 14 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Income Tax, Rectification Of Mistakes, Tax Deducted At Source ... ... ... ... ..... he order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal dated April 25, 1985, in I. T. A. Nos. 156 to 158/Coch of 1984-85 and withdrawal of credit of TDS wrongly given for the assessment year 1978-79. Implementation of an order of the appellate authority is not under section 154. Such an order can be treated as one passed under section 143. A wrong reference to the provision of law in the order cannot change the real nature of the order or affect the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer. We are, therefore, of the view that the order, annexure-A2, dated June 17, 1986, is not passed beyond the period of limitation. In the result, we answer question No. (i) in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. (ii) is also answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1997 (6) TMI 13 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Orders Prejudicial To Interests ... ... ... ... ..... icer. It was also held that the assessee was deprived of fair opportunity to show-cause against proposed action. The Tribunal was thus justified in reversing the Commissioner s order. There Lordships have made a reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT 1968 67 ITR 84. A similar view has been taken by the Orissa High Court in the matter of sales tax in the case of Rawani Dal and Floor Mills v. CST 1992 86 STC 409, and under the Orissa Sales Tax Act, the Commissioner issued notice exercising his revisional jurisdiction without giving reasons in the notice. Their Lordships held that the notice should contain the reasons so as to give an opportunity to the assessee and in the absence of that the notice is bad. Hence, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is quite right and we accordingly answer both the aforesaid questions against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. This reference is accordingly answered.
-
1997 (6) TMI 12 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax Act, Law Applicable, Orders Passed, Retrospective Effect, Tribunal's Order
-
1997 (6) TMI 11 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Relief In Respect ... ... ... ... ..... g. With great respect, we are of the opinion that this has nothing to do with the essential activity of the undertaking. The expression industrial undertaking has to be considered to mean essential trade activity of the assessee and not otherwise. The word derive means derived from industrial activity and industrial activity means the business in which industry is involved. In the present case, the industrial undertaking is involved in the business of oil extraction and not in the business of letting out the weighing machine for consideration and in granting loans on interest. Therefore, both the activities are not essential part of the activities of the assessee undertaking and as such, the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) rightly approached the matter and the view taken by the Tribunal is erroneous and has to be set aside. Hence, we answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference is accordingly disposed of.
-
1997 (6) TMI 10 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax Act, Assessing Officer, Original Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... . In view of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in its findings that the revised assessment made under section 35 for the year 1974-75 was not in order. It is irrelevant whether the quantum of suppression made by the assessee was in the hands of the assessing authority at the time of original assessment or not. Even if these materials were available in the file, but were omitted to be taken into consideration by the assessing authority at the time of passing the original assessment order, initiation of proceedings under section 35 would be justified on those materials. In view of the above, we answer question No. 1 in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and decline to answer question No. 2. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Additional Bench, Kottayam.
-
1997 (6) TMI 9 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessing Officer, High Court Under Article 226, Income Tax Authorities ... ... ... ... ..... therefore, no need to issue any directions to them or to keep the petitions pending. As regards directions which are sought for investigation into the allegations through the CBI, we find that there is absolutely no ground made out at this premature stage where not even offences are alleged, to issue any directions to the said special investigating agency. We, therefore, cannot accept the contention that directions should be given to the CBI to investigate into the matter. More so, when the concerned authorities of the Income-tax Department are investigating into the allegations, the outcome of which cannot be known at this stage. For the above reasons, we hold that no directions are required to be given as sought for by the petitioners and the petitions fail. Notice is, therefore, discharged in both the petitions with no order as to costs. The Civil Application No. 3589 of 1997 in Special Civil Application No. 7417 of 1996 also stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (6) TMI 8 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Condition Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... I am of the view, it is in the interest of justice to quash the impugned intimations and the orders, instead of compelling the parties to again approach the appellate authority. Therefore, the intimations which are impugned in these petitions and also the orders passed rejecting the applications filed by the petitioner seeking rectification of the intimations issued are liable to be quashed. 17. In the light of the conclusions I have reached above, I make the following order (i) Intimations, Annexures B and C, both dt. 22nd March, 1993, and the orders Annexure F dt. 21st July, 1993 Annexure G dt. 21st July 1993 and Annexure H dt. 19th April, 1994 are hereby quashed. (ii) The respondents are directed to refund the advance tax paid for the asst. yrs. 1991-92 and 1992-93 within three months from today. (iii) Accordingly, these petitions are allowed. Rule issued is made absolute. (iv) However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, no order is made as to costs.
-
1997 (6) TMI 7 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Law Applicable, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... Schedule, in the ordinary course, cannot be given retrospective effect. But the contention of the assessee is that the Schedule is clarificatory in nature. We find it difficult to accept this contention. Learned counsel is not in a position to point out the particular rule or section which is clarified by the provisions contained under Schedule III. Apart from the above, on an examination of the relevant section as well as the provisions contained in the Schedule we do not understand rule 8(c) read with rule 20 as clarificatory in nature so as to be given retrospective effect. In view of the above we find that the Tribunal was fully justified in upholding the method of valuation on rental capitalisation. The question referred is, therefore, answered in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. 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.
-
1997 (6) TMI 6 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Concealment, Penalty, Waiver ... ... ... ... ..... o say that he shall also co-operate in any enquiry relating to the assessment of his income and has either paid or made satisfactory arrangements for the payment of any tax or interest payable in consequence of an order passed under the Act in respect of the relevant assessment years. It is not necessary for us to consider whether the latter part of the section has been complied with by the assessee in this case. It is evident from the facts of the case stated above that the disclosure of full and true particulars has come into existence only after the detection of the defective returns by the Income-tax Officer. Consequently, the assessee is not entitled to the benefit of clause (b) of section 273A(1). The view expressed by the Commissioner of Income-tax is, therefore, correct. We do not find any justification to interfere with the order passed by the Commissioner. Hence, these two writ petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Interim orders are vacated.
-
1997 (6) TMI 5 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance, Hotel, Depreciation, Business Expenditure, Interest, Bonus ... ... ... ... ..... 2 1,10,000 9,17,417 ---------------------------------------------------- Excess tax paid 35,708 ---------------------- From the above figures it is clear that for the assessment year in question the assessee had paid Rs. 35,708 in excess of its assessed liability. Though the said payments by way of advance tax were made after the prescribed due dates, none the less, in similar circumstances, this court in the case of CIT v. Karnataka State Warehousing Corporation Ltd. 1990 185 ITR 25 has held that interest on excess advance tax has to be paid by the Government even if the instalments of advance tax have been paid after due dates but within the financial year. For the reasons as stated above, in the conclusion questions Nos. (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) are answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. However, questions at Sl. Nos. (iv) and (vi) are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (6) TMI 4 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance, Lease, Extra Shift Allowance, Interpretation ... ... ... ... ..... es of Ajodhya Prasad Tara Chand Khekra v. CIT 1967 66 ITR 576 Kavit Sanghi (Smt.) v. CIT 1982 133 ITR 48 and in the case of CIT v. Steel Rolling Mills of Hindustan (P.) Ltd. 1987 164 ITR 633. So far as the claim of the extra shift allowance is concerned, as already noticed by us, section 32(ii) of the Act provides for grant of depreciation. This section, inter alia, provides that in respect of depreciation of machinery, plant, etc., owned by the assessee and used for the purpose of business or profession certain deduction will be admissible. The basic requirement for claiming this deduction as well is the same as for claiming the investment allowance dealt with by us in the foregoing paragraphs. Therefore, for those very reasons, we hold that the assessee is entitled for extra shift allowance as well. Accordingly, we answer both the questions in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Department. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (6) TMI 3 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Scientific Research, Capital Expenditure, Industrial Sheds, Depreciation, Actual Cost, Central Subsidy
-
1997 (6) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Condition Precedent, Reassessment, Property Escaping Assessment, Underassessment, Valuation Of Assets
-
1997 (6) TMI 1 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... cost of poultry shed, machinery, cages and other equipments? Counsel for the parties are agreed that in view of the ratio of the decision of this court in CIT v. Deejay Hatcheries 1995 211 ITR 652, the assessee is not entitled to investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In view of the above, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Reference disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
....
|
