|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 273 of 273 Records
-
1985 (7) TMI 13
Issues:
1. Whether the transfer of a petrol tanker from an individual business to a partnership firm, where the individual also becomes a partner, amounts to a transfer under section 2(47) and if the difference between the written down value and the amount received by the individual from the firm is assessable as profit under section 41(2) of the Income-tax Act.
Analysis:
The case involved the transfer of a petrol tanker by an individual to a partnership firm, where the individual also became a partner. The Income-tax Officer treated this transfer as a sale and calculated a profit under section 41(2) of the Act, which was added to the individual's total income. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal held that no sale or transfer occurred, therefore deleting the profit amount from the individual's income.
The Commissioner of Income-tax sought a reference to the High Court under section 256(2) of the Act, arguing that the transfer of the petrol tanker to the partnership firm constituted a sale, making the profit assessable under section 41(2). The Tribunal had refused to make a reference, citing previous Supreme Court decisions that clarified the nature of transfers to partnership firms where the partner is the transferor.
The High Court analyzed the legal concept of a partnership firm, emphasizing that a partner transferring an asset to a partnership firm, where the partner is also a member, does not involve a sale as the firm is not a separate legal entity but a collective of partners. The court referred to Supreme Court decisions that established that such transfers do not amount to sales, and therefore, the profit calculated under section 41(2) was not applicable in this scenario.
Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the application for reference, stating that the issue was settled by previous Supreme Court judgments, and there was no arguable question to refer to the court. The court affirmed that no transfer or sale occurred when a partner contributes an asset to a partnership firm where they are also a member, as the firm and the partner are not distinct legal entities.
-
1985 (7) TMI 12
Issues involved:
1. Validity of proceedings under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Treatment of credit entries in duplicate set of uchanti books.
3. Creation of new source of income by the Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Alleged double taxation of business transactions.
Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns an application under section 256(2) related to the assessment year 1962-63. The Tribunal rejected the application under section 256(1) as some questions did not arise, some were factual, and a few were covered by Supreme Court judgments. The main issue revolved around the validity of proceedings under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal found that reasons for reopening the assessment were recorded by the Income-tax Officer, based on uchanti books handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation before a raid. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) confirmed the validity of the proceedings, which the Tribunal upheld as a finding of fact, dismissing the contention that no reasons were recorded.
2. Questions 8, 9, and 10 dealt with the treatment of credit entries in duplicate uchanti books. The Income-tax Officer had clubbed peak credits to determine concealed income, while the Commissioner (Appeals) analyzed the entries differently. The Commissioner inferred additional income from the ghee business based on the entries, which the assessee challenged as creating a new source of income. The Court held that no new source was created, as the transactions were within the existing business scope. The Commissioner's decision was based on existing evidence and fell within the appellate power scope, not constituting enhancement.
3. The judgment clarified that the Commissioner's decision was not an enhancement but a reconsideration of existing evidence, leading to a different conclusion. The power of enhancement granted to the Commissioner (Appeals) did not apply in this case as it involved a reduction, not a creation of a new source of income. The Court emphasized that the Commissioner's decision was based on existing facts and evidence, affirming the Tribunal's decision.
4. The alleged double taxation issue regarding business transactions was found to lack factual basis in both the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal's orders. The Court concluded that this issue did not arise from the proceedings. Overall, the application was dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs, as the raised questions did not present any significant legal issues for consideration.
-
1985 (7) TMI 11
The High Court of Gujarat ruled in a group of three references related to section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding clubbing income of minor sons or spouse from a partnership firm with the income of the father or husband. The court held that section 64(1)(ii) could not be invoked in these cases. The judgments were in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue in all three references. No costs were awarded. (Case citation: 1985 (7) TMI 11 - GUJARAT High Court)
-
1985 (7) TMI 10
Issues:
1. Valid initiation of assessments under section 35 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act.
2. Classification of the trust as a private religious trust under section 4(3)(a) of the Act.
Analysis:
1. The court addressed the issue of the valid initiation of assessments under section 35 of the Agricultural Income-tax Act for the years 1974-75, 1975-76, and 1976-77. The petitioner, upon receiving assessment orders, did not raise concerns about separate notices for his different capacities as the manager of Hindu undivided family properties and as trustee of trust properties. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer issued a reassessment notice and completed the assessment, separately assessing income from both capacities. The court found that the proceedings were not invalid due to the lack of separate notices, as the petitioner was required to file returns for all his agricultural properties and failed to disclose all relevant information. The court cited precedents to support the view that defects in notices do not automatically invalidate assessments.
2. The court examined whether the trust in question could be classified as a private religious trust under section 4(3)(a) of the Act. The section specifies that agricultural income from properties held under trust for private religious purposes, which does not benefit the public, is not excluded from total agricultural income. The court found no evidence to suggest that the trust properties would benefit the public. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue, affirming that the trust did not qualify as a public trust under the Act.
In conclusion, the court upheld the assessments for the years in question, rejecting the petitioner's arguments regarding the initiation of assessments and the classification of the trust. The judgment favored the Revenue in both issues, emphasizing the importance of accurate disclosure and compliance with tax laws.
-
1985 (7) TMI 9
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment completed by the Income-tax Officer (ITO) without serving notice to all legal representatives of the deceased assessee.
2. Whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) was justified in annulling the assessment.
Summary:
Issue 1: Validity of the assessment completed by the ITO without serving notice to all legal representatives of the deceased assessee.
The ITO discovered that the deceased assessee, Mohanlal, failed to disclose material facts, leading to escaped income assessment. After issuing a notice u/s 148, Mohanlal filed a return and subsequently died. The ITO issued a notice u/s 142(1) to the deceased, which was received by his son, Gyan Prakash Gupta. Despite being informed of the legal representatives, the ITO did not issue notices to all of them. The AAC found the assessment orders void ab initio due to the lack of notice to all legal representatives, including Smt. Dayawati Gupta, in whose favor a will was executed.
Issue 2: Whether the AAC was justified in annulling the assessment.
The AAC annulled the assessments on the grounds that:
1. No assessments could be completed in the name of Gyan Prakash Gupta.
2. The property was bequeathed to Smt. Dayawati Gupta, and any assessment should have been made in her name.
3. The ITO was informed of the legal representatives but did not issue notices to them.
The Tribunal agreed with the AAC, dismissing the appeal by the Commissioner of Income-tax, stating that the assessments were rightly annulled. The Tribunal did not address other points raised.
Legal Provisions and Case Law:
- Section 142: Notice u/s 142(1) was issued to the deceased, which is procedurally incorrect.
- Section 143: Mandates serving notice before making an assessment.
- Section 153: Time-limit for completing assessments.
- Section 159: Deals with the liability of legal representatives, deeming them as assessees.
The court examined various case laws:
- Estate of Late Rangalal Jajodia v. CIT: Assessment proceedings do not cease due to want of notice but are liable to be corrected.
- Kamalesh Kumar Mehta v. CIT: Failure to issue notice to legal representatives does not annul the assessment but requires setting it aside.
- Sant Baba Mohan Singh v. CIT: Failure to issue notice does not annul the assessment but requires setting it aside.
- Rattan Lal Tiku v. CIT: Non-compliance with section 143(2) vitiates the order but does not annul it.
- CIT v. Sumantbhai C. Munshaw: Procedural omissions do not affect the initial jurisdiction but require correction.
- Jai Prakash Singh v. CIT: Assessment without notice to all legal representatives is invalid but should be set aside, not annulled.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the AAC should have set aside the assessment instead of annulling it. The failure to serve notice u/s 143(2) is an irregularity that invalidates the assessment but does not render it ab initio void. The correct order by the AAC should have been to set aside the assessment for being redone de novo. The court answered the question in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (7) TMI 8
The High Court of Calcutta dismissed the Revenue's application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction for a customary bonus paid by M/s. Babcock & Willcox of India Ltd. to its employees. The court found that the bonus was paid on commercial expediency and fell within the range allowed by the Bonus (Amendment) Ordinance. The court concluded that no specific question of law arose in the case. The rule was discharged without costs.
-
1985 (7) TMI 7
Issues: Show-cause notice under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, validity of remand order by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 263, sufficiency of service, application under section 256(2) of the Act.
Analysis:
The High Court of Rajasthan dealt with a case where the Commissioner of Income-tax issued a show-cause notice under section 263 of the Income-tax Act to the assessee for the assessment years 1977-78 and 1978-79, seeking to reopen the assessments made by the Income-tax Officer under section 143(1) of the Act. Despite the assessee not appearing, the Commissioner passed an ex parte order setting aside both assessments and directing a fresh enquiry. The assessee appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which, while acknowledging valid service of the notice, remanded the matter to the Commissioner to determine the competence of the Income-tax Officer to conduct a fresh enquiry. The assessee contended that the remand order was unjustified and sought direction to the Tribunal to refer specific questions to the High Court, including the jurisdiction of the Commissioner under section 263.
The High Court rejected the assessee's argument, emphasizing that the Tribunal's remand allowed the assessee to raise questions before the Commissioner regarding the competence of proceedings under section 263. The Court declined to interfere at that stage and opined that the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for fresh consideration was sufficient. The Court highlighted that the assessee could challenge the validity of the proceedings under section 263 before the Commissioner, and any further questions could be addressed in an appeal to the Tribunal against the Commissioner's decision. The Court dismissed the idea of calling for a reference, stating that the sufficiency of service was no longer relevant once the matter had been remanded to the Commissioner, as the entire case had been reopened for consideration.
In conclusion, the High Court found no justification to call for a reference and dismissed the application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act. The judgment underscores the importance of allowing the Commissioner to re-examine the case and the assessee's right to raise all relevant questions during the proceedings before the tax authorities and the appellate tribunal.
-
1985 (7) TMI 6
The Commissioner of Wealth-tax filed an application under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, questioning the retrospective nature of Explanation 1 to section 5(1)(viii) regarding the exclusion of jewelry from taxable wealth. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner based on a Full Bench decision. The High Court declined to entertain the application for a reference to the Tribunal, citing lack of valid grounds.
-
1985 (7) TMI 5
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Wealth-tax Act provisions regarding assessment under sections 21(4) and 22(1).
2. Whether the Wealth-tax Officer can make an assessment on trustees after assessing beneficiaries.
3. Validity of assessment based on beneficiary shares specified in the trust deed.
4. Rejection of reference application under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act.
Analysis:
The case involved an application by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, seeking a statement of the case from the Tribunal regarding specific questions of law. The primary issues revolved around the interpretation of provisions under sections 21(4) and 22(1) of the Wealth-tax Act. The applicant contended that the Wealth-tax Officer, by assessing beneficiaries before trustees, could not subsequently assess trustees. The trust deed did not specify the shares of beneficiaries, leading to a dispute regarding the validity of the assessment based on beneficiary shares.
The Tribunal found that both the beneficiaries and their shares were known, thus justifying the assessment under section 22(1) instead of section 21(4) of the Wealth-tax Act. The Tribunal also held that assessing beneficiaries directly did not affect the tax liability if an assessment were to be made on trustees. The applicant filed a reference application under section 27(1) of the Wealth-tax Act, which was rejected by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, leading to the present petition.
In the judgment, the court referred to a Full Bench decision and concluded that no question of law arose as the Tribunal had provided sufficient reasoning. Consequently, the court declined to entertain the petition and dismissed it summarily. The decision highlighted the importance of proper reasoning by the Tribunal in such matters, ultimately leading to the dismissal of the petition seeking a reference.
Overall, the judgment emphasized the significance of proper interpretation of statutory provisions and the necessity of clear and reasoned decisions by the Tribunal in tax assessment matters. The court's decision to dismiss the petition underscored the importance of established legal principles and the need for substantial grounds to seek references under the Wealth-tax Act.
-
1985 (7) TMI 4
Issues:
1. Application by Revenue under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for direction to ITAT.
2. Imposition of penalties on the assessee for assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71.
3. Appeal to Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and subsequent second appeals to Tribunal.
4. Conflict in decisions of two Members of the Tribunal regarding penalty imposition.
5. Rejection of reference to the High Court by the Tribunal.
6. Question of law regarding final decision of Tribunal on penalty imposition for 1970-71 assessment year.
Analysis:
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh addressed an application by the Revenue under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) to state the case and refer the question of law arising in the case. The assessee, Anwarkhan Mehboob Co., Jabalpur, filed its return late for the assessment years 1969-70 and 1970-71, leading to the Income-tax Officer imposing penalties amounting to Rs. 48,705.50 and Rs. 57,270, respectively. The assessee's appeals to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) were dismissed, prompting second appeals to the Tribunal, resulting in conflicting orders by two Members of the Tribunal regarding the imposition of penalties.
The Tribunal's decision highlighted a grievance by the assessee that it was not given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the penalties were imposed. While one Member quashed the penalty and previous orders, the other Member directed the Income-tax Officer to provide a proper hearing and pass a fresh order. This discrepancy led to a conflict in the Tribunal's orders for the assessment year 1970-71, as no attempt to reconcile the differing decisions was made. The Revenue's application for a reference to the High Court was rejected by the Tribunal, stating no question of law arose, prompting the Revenue to approach the High Court under section 256(2) of the Act.
The High Court, noting the conflicting directions in the Tribunal's separate orders for the 1970-71 assessment year, found a question of law regarding the final decision on penalty imposition. The Court directed the Tribunal to state the case and refer the question of law for decision. The crucial question posed was whether the Tribunal had made an operative order in accordance with the law concerning the imposition of penalties for the 1970-71 assessment year. As no opposition was presented, no costs were awarded in the matter.
-
1985 (7) TMI 3
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the extended meaning of the term "jewellery" under the Wealth-tax Act would be applicable only from April 1, 1972, and onwards. The Tribunal's decision was upheld based on the Explanation to section 5(1)(viii) of the Act. The reference was made by the Revenue, but the Court answered in favor of the assessee, citing a Full Bench decision supporting the Tribunal's reasoning.
-
1985 (7) TMI 2
Assessee succeeded to the business of the earlier firm - held that if a business along with its assets and liabilities were transferred by one owner to another, the debt so transferred is entitled to the same treatment in the hands of the successor. Therefore if the debt was taken into account for computation of the income of the predecessor assessee only and has been subsequently written off by the successor assessee, the assessee would still be entitled to the deduction of bad debt.
-
1985 (7) TMI 1
Question of construction of s. 80M - Intercorporate Dividends - it cannot be said that s. 80AA has the effect of imposing any fresh tax with retrospective effect. Section 80AA is clearly declaratory in nature and merely declares what the correct position has always been - held that for deduction of intercorporation dividends u/s 80Mm, the net dividend income forming part of the gross total income is to be considered, and not the full dividend received by the assessee
....
|
9911796707
