|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 289 of 289 Records
-
1990 (10) TMI 9
Issues:
Assessment of rental income under the head "House property" instead of "Business" or "Other sources" for the assessment year 1975-76.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the assessment year 1975-76 and revolves around the question of rectification of a mistake apparent from the record under section 154 of the Income-tax Act. The assessee, a company, had leased out its land, calender machines, and sizing machines along with the building. The Income-tax Officer assessed the total rental income under the head "House property." The assessee contended that the income from the land should be assessed under "Other sources" and the income from machinery and building under "Business." The Income-tax Officer, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and Tribunal all upheld the assessment under "House property."
The key issue was whether the assessment of rental income under "House property" for the assessment year 1975-76 was a mistake apparent from the record. The court highlighted the limited scope of section 154, allowing rectification of mistakes that are apparent from the record. The judgment emphasized that rectification is not applicable to debatable points of fact or law. The court noted the historical treatment of rental income by the Income-tax Officer and the varying assessments in different assessment years. It was observed that the treatment of rental income as business income or house property income depended on specific facts and circumstances, requiring a detailed investigation.
The court concluded that the question of whether rental income should be treated as business income or house property income was debatable and required a thorough analysis of facts. As such, the court held that the mistake sought to be rectified was not apparent from the record. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the assessment under "House property" was deemed justified. The judgment favored the Revenue and dismissed the assessee's appeal. The judges unanimously agreed on the decision, and no costs were awarded in the case.
In summary, the judgment delves into the intricacies of assessing rental income under different heads, emphasizing the need for a clear factual basis to determine the appropriate classification. The court's analysis underscores the limitations of rectification under section 154 and the importance of distinguishing between debatable issues and mistakes apparent from the record in tax assessments.
-
1990 (10) TMI 8
Issues involved: Interpretation of rule 6D(2)(b) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 for the assessment year 1980-81.
Summary:
The case involved a dispute regarding the disallowance of certain expenses under rule 6D(2)(b) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The Income-tax Officer disallowed expenses based on the interpretation that incidental conveyance expenses should be considered. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowances, which was upheld by the Tribunal. The main question referred to the court was whether the disallowance should be restricted to a certain amount. The court considered the arguments presented by both the Revenue and the assessee regarding the interpretation of rule 6D.
The court analyzed rule 6D, which distinguishes between expenditure incurred outside and within India. It focused on whether the expression "including hotel expenses" in connection with travel should be limited only to daily allowances or cover other expenses like conveyance. The court emphasized that expenses on conveyance to and from the airport or railway station, in connection with business, should not fall under the purview of rule 6D. It clarified that clause (a) governs actual travel expenditure, including the entire journey from start to destination, encompassing various modes of transport.
The court concluded that the Revenue misconstrued the rules, as clause (a) governs travel expenditure, not clause (b). It held that expenses for road transport from the airport or rail station to the hotel and back are admissible without the restriction of monetary limits in clause (b). The court also highlighted that the restriction in rule 6D pertains to expenses on stay and daily allowances, not other business-related expenses. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the expenditure claimed was reasonable and fell within the permissible limits set by the section and rule.
In a separate judgment, Justice Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee concurred with the decision in favor of the assessee, resulting in no order as to costs.
-
1990 (10) TMI 7
Issues:
Whether the assessee is entitled to deduction on account of interest paid on capital borrowed for investment in a firm under section 67(3) or section 36(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
The case involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1981-82. The assessee, a partner in a firm, claimed deduction for interest paid on capital borrowed for investment in the firm, despite no share income from the firm due to a change in its accounting year. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the deduction, stating no income from the firm justified disallowance. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the deduction, considering it a business loss under section 70(1) to be set off against other income. The Department appealed to the Tribunal against this decision.
The Tribunal held that to claim under section 67(3), there must be share income from the firm. If disallowed under section 67(3), section 36(1)(iii) cannot be used for deduction. The High Court agreed with the Tribunal, emphasizing that section 67(3) allows deduction for interest paid on capital borrowed for investment in the firm only if the partner has income from the firm. Referring to a Madras High Court decision, the court reiterated that if a claim under section 67(3) is negatived, section 36(1)(iii) cannot be used for deduction.
Therefore, the court concluded that the assessee was not entitled to deduction for interest paid on capital borrowed for investment in the firm due to the absence of share income from the firm. The court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, denying the deduction claim under both sections 67(3) and 36(1)(iii).
This judgment clarifies the conditions for claiming deductions under specific sections of the Income-tax Act concerning interest paid on capital borrowed for investment in a firm. It highlights the requirement of share income from the firm to be eligible for deductions under section 67(3) and the inability to fallback on section 36(1)(iii) if disallowed under section 67(3).
-
1990 (10) TMI 6
Return filed beyond time - Tribunal was justified in holding that, by the levy of interest under section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Income-tax Officer must be deemed to have granted time up to the date of filing the return of income - penalty u/s 271(1)(a) not leviable.
-
1990 (10) TMI 5
Assessee, a company resident in British India had a cotton mill in British India - cloth manufactured by the mill was sold in British India as well as in the native States - In respect of remittance received from native States whether the assessee could claim deduction of profits deemed to arise in British India, and only the balance could be taxed under s. 14(2)(c)
-
1990 (10) TMI 4
Income being in respect of letting of godowns or warehouses for storage, processing or facilitating the marketing of commodities - Whether the assessee was an "authority" within the meaning of section 10(29) constituted under law for marketing of commodities - assessee having fulfilled all the tests was rightly entitled to the exemption as claimed u/s 10(29)
-
1990 (10) TMI 3
Circular No. 189 dated January 30, 1976 - Reserve for purposes of development rebate - Whether, the assessee can be said to have complied with the provisions of proviso (b) to section 10(2)(vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and was, therefore, entitled to allowance of development rebate on the plant and machinery installed after January 1, 1958
-
1990 (10) TMI 2
Mining Lease - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the payment of Rs. 3 lakhs to the Northern Railway was a revenue expenditure and was a deduction allowable under the Income-tax Act, 1961 - High Court, in our opinion, failed to appreciate the true nature of the expenditure - High Court committed an error in interfering with the findings recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
-
1990 (10) TMI 1
Bad Debt - Deemed Profit - contention of the assessee was that he was not assessable under section 41(4) of the 1961 Act because these amounts had been written off as bad debts in the year 1959-60 and his claim for deduction, though initially disallowed by the Income-tax Officer, was subsequently allowed - contentions of the assessee fail and the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed
....
|
9911796707
