|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 261 to 264 of 264 Records
-
1981 (9) TMI 4
Issues:
1. Assessment of the assessee as a non-resident for the assessment year 1958-59.
2. Validity of the cancellation of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1958-59.
3. Determination of control and management of the firm during the relevant years.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The case involved the assessment of the assessee as a non-resident for the assessment year 1958-59. The Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment due to the presence of one of the partners in India during the relevant years, suspecting de facto control over the business in India. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld the assessment as a resident, doubting the partner's claim of being in India solely for his daughter's marriage. However, the Tribunal found evidence that the partner had delegated full management powers to an agent in Malaya and that control was not exercised from India. The Tribunal concluded that the firm was a non-resident, cancelling the assessments and penalty accordingly.
2. The issue of the cancellation of penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1958-59 was closely tied to the assessment as a non-resident. The Tribunal's decision to cancel the penalty was based on the finding that the firm was non-resident, indicating that if the assessment favored the assessee, the penalty would be deleted. The Tribunal's comprehensive consideration of the control and management aspects led to the cancellation of the penalty, aligning with the assessment outcome.
3. The central issue revolved around the determination of control and management of the firm during the relevant years. The Tribunal analyzed the partnership deed, power of attorney, and actions of the partners to establish that control was effectively exercised from Malaya, not India. The Tribunal's decision was supported by legal precedents emphasizing the actual exercise of control and management, rather than theoretical rights. The absence of evidence showing control from India led to the conclusion that the firm was not a resident in India during the relevant years, impacting both the assessment and penalty outcomes.
-
1981 (9) TMI 3
Issues: Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1961-62.
Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of MADRAS pertains to a reference under the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the imposition of a penalty on the assessee for the assessment year 1961-62 under section 271(1)(a) of the Act. The key question raised was whether the Tribunal was justified in law in reducing the penalty. Section 271(1)(a) provides for the levy of penalty when an assessee fails, without reasonable cause, to furnish their return of income within the specified time. The penalty is quantified as 2% of the assessed tax for each month of default. The Tribunal in this case determined that the assessee had a reasonable cause for the delay in filing the return except for the first three months of the year 1962. The Tribunal found that the delay during January, February, and March 1962 was not justified by the reasons provided by the assessee, leading to the quantification of penalty for these three months.
The Tribunal considered the circumstances surrounding the delay in filing the return. It noted that the assessee's records were seized during a raid in April 1962, making it challenging to prepare the return accurately. However, the Tribunal found that the delay from January to March 1962 could not be justified by the reasons given by the assessee, such as a partner's illness and absence. The Tribunal concluded that penalty under section 271(1)(a) should be imposed at the rate of 2% on the assessed tax for the three months of January, February, and March 1962 due to the lack of reasonable cause for the delay during that period.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that penalty could only be levied for months where there was no reasonable cause for the delay. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's finding that the default was limited to the first three months of 1962, and therefore, the quantification of the penalty was appropriate. As there was no challenge to the Tribunal's factual findings regarding the reasonable cause for the delay, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the penalty should only be imposed for the specified three months of default. Consequently, the reference was answered against the Department, and the assessee was awarded costs, including counsel's fee.
-
1981 (9) TMI 2
Issues:
1. Cancelling penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1961-62.
2. Jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal in cancelling the penalty.
Analysis:
The case involved an assessee, a private limited company engaged in mining and export of iron and manganese ore, which filed a return declaring a loss for the assessment year 1961-62. The Income-tax Officer observed credit entries in the books in the names of multani bankers, which the assessee explained as borrowed money through hundis. Additionally, interest payments were recorded. The assessee claimed a firm had a controlling interest and that the loans were undisclosed income of that firm. The Income-tax Officer added the hundi transactions amount to the income and disallowed the interest claim. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the assessee's appeal, leading to the Department appealing to the Tribunal, which set aside the assessment regarding the additions and disallowances.
The issue of penalty arose when the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 27,226. The Tribunal, considering the firm's claim regarding the transactions and a similar case, cancelled the penalty. However, the Department challenged this cancellation through a reference under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The High Court noted that since the assessment had been set aside, the penalty proceedings should have been dependent on the assessment. As the assessment was no longer valid, the penalty proceedings could not have been concluded by merely cancelling the penalty. The Tribunal erred in cancelling the penalty without considering the assessment findings resulting from its directions. Consequently, the High Court found the Tribunal's actions erroneous and answered the questions in the negative, favoring the Department. The Court did not award any costs in this particular case.
-
1981 (9) TMI 1
Held that sub-s. (2) of s. 52 can be invoked only where the consideration for the transfer has been understated by the assessee or, in other words, the consideration actually received by the assessee is more than what is declared or disclosed by him and the burden of proving such an understatement or concealment is on the revenue
....
|
9911796707
