|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 339 Records
-
1997 (10) TMI 59 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ct. Merely because the fact finding Tribunal could have arrived at a different finding by a parity of reasoning, a question of law does not arise. It is well settled that whether an expenditure was incurred or not, is a question falling within the domain of facts whether such an expenditure is allowable as a deduction or not and how the nature of such expenditure is to be classified under the relevant legal provision is a question of law. The question as proposed by the Revenue as to the payment of Rs. 46,65,600 to APVN does not arise as question of law in view of the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. 6. In our opinion, no referable question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal had rightly opined while rejecting the petitioner s application under s. 256(1) of the Act that the questions raised by the Revenue were merely of fact and hence were not referable to the High Court. The application under s. 256(2) of the IT Act is, therefore, rejected.
-
1997 (10) TMI 58 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Computation Of Profits ... ... ... ... ..... to be worked out. But there is no such intention reflected in cl. (b) of the first proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 205 of the Companies Act. It does not say so in so many words that all the previous years loss has to be given credit. That appears to be so for the simple reason that if that is permitted then no useful purpose would be served by incorporating s. 115J of the IT Act. The idea behind s. 115J was only to check the tactics adopted by the assessee to work out zero profit of the company therefore, this was specially incorporated in s. 115J of the IT Act and a peculiar mode was adopted by working out the book profit. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal does not appear to be correct. 6. In the result, we answer the aforesaid questions in the light of the aforesaid observations and direct the Tribunal to work out the whole assessment afresh according to the above observations. Hence, this reference is accordingly disposed of.
-
1997 (10) TMI 57 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Valuation Of Gift ... ... ... ... ..... pril, 1979, therefore, assessment would be made on the basis of amended rules. In the present case, question before us, as referred by the Tribunal, is as to how to value the cumulative redeemable preference shares of M/s Simplex Casting (P) Ltd. Our answer is that it has to be assessed in terms of r. 10 of the Rules wherein two methods are provided. In case the first method is not available, then the second method should be resorted to, for assessing the value of the property. 6. Learned counsel also invited our attention to the fact that the rule has also undergone a change on 1st April, 1989. Be that as it may, that is not the scope of enquiry in the present case as the question here is in regard to determination of value in terms of r. 10 of the Rules r/w s. 3 of the Act. Hence, we do not want to observe anything whether the assessee has claimed valuation in terms of r. 10 or not. 7. Accordingly, we answer both the questions in favour of Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1997 (10) TMI 56 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance ... ... ... ... ..... s, beauty contests, consumer contests, consumer gift offers and free samples gifts fall within the ambit of new sub-s. (3A) of s. 37 of the Act. But the brokerage paid to the commission agent does not fall in any of the categories enumerated above by the circular. If, in the interpretation, payment of brokerage to the commission agent is to be included, then there is no reason why this could not have been included as one of the categories of sales promotion but that was not done deliberately so as not to give a very extended meaning to the expression sales promotion . Therefore, in our opinion, brokerage and commission paid for selling the goods would not come within the mischief of the phrase advertisement, publicity and sales promotion . The view taken by the Tribunal with reference to the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Hindustan Motors Limited (supra) appears to be justified. Hence, we answer this question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1997 (10) TMI 55 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ification in finding the issue in favour of the assessee only for the reason that for the subsequent years 1986-87 and 1987-88 change in previous year was permitted. 16. In the light of the above, we answer question No. 1 in IT Ref. No. 125/92 in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Questions 2(a) to 2(g) are not answered, as unnecessary in view of the answers given to other questions. We refuse to answer question No. 3, as it is another facet of question No. 1. We refuse to answer the question in IT Ref. No. 4/94 in view of the finding in this judgment that the Tribunal has to remand the matter to the ITO for fresh consideration. We answer question No. 1 in IT. Ref. Nos. 166 and 167/ 1995 in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We refuse to answer question No. 2 in view of our answer to question No. 1 in IT Ref. No. 125/92. Question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1997 (10) TMI 54 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Loss, Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... accordingly quash the said orders. I direct the second respondent to afford an opportunity to the petitioner or show cause against the rejection of the loss returns filed for the years 1986-87 and 1987-88 and also to complete the assessments for the years 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 after due consideration of the objections that may be taken by the petitioner. It is for the assessing authority to consider the merits of the contentions regarding the acceptability of the loss return and therefore, the same is left open for consideration by the second respondent while completing the said assessments. Since the matter relates to the asst. yrs. 1986-87 to 1988-89, I direct the second respondent to complete the proceedings for the aforesaid three years afresh with notice and opportunity to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The Original Petition is allowed to the above extent.
-
1997 (10) TMI 53 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Rectification Of Mistakes, Debatable Issue ... ... ... ... ..... ate Assistant Commissioner were rendered incompetent. Question No. 2 is, therefore, answered by holding that the appeals before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were incompetent and superfluous in view of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax on the same point for the same assessment year. (3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee was a manufacturing company and was, therefore, liable to tax at the lower rate (for the assessment years which were the subject-matter of appeal before the Tribunal). (4) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee-company was to be taxed at the lesser rate being a manufacturing company (for the assessment year forming the subject-matter of appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal). The question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1997 (10) TMI 52 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Powers Of Tribunal, Dissolution Of Firm ... ... ... ... ..... nt relief to the assessee on another ground, even when it rejects the contention raised by the assessee. By applying the same principle in the present case, we find no justification for the complaint of the assessee that the Tribunal has acted beyond its power under section 24(5) of the Wealth-tax Act. It has to be noted that in the questions formulated, the assessee had not stated that no opportunity was given to the assessee before the Tribunal took the view that the inclusion could be upheld as payment made towards cost of the building under construction. In the light of the above, we answer question No. 1 in all the three references in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Since the other questions are only different facets of question No. 1, we decline to answer questions Nos. 2 to 5. 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 (10) TMI 51 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Writ, Valuation, Assessment, Fixed Deposit, Third Party, Mala Fide
... ... ... ... ..... fficial in the Department. If he certifies the loan by the creditor who is the assessee of the Department, no addition is warranted. Similarly, the amount of various gifts be verified, before any addition is made. In the result, the writ petition of Dr. Tomar is allowed. All the six assessment orders annexures-IX-A to IX-F dated March 22, 1996, and March 27, 1996, are set aside and also drop the penalty proceedings, if any initiated on the basis of these assessment orders, with a direction to pass fresh assessment orders within three months, in the light of the aforesaid discussions. The issue regarding ownership of FDRs of Shri Jayanti Lal Patel has been considered in the writ petition filed by Dr. Tomar, and there is no need to go into the merits once again in the case of the petition filed by Shri Jayanti Lal Patel as the ownership of Shri Jayanti Lal Patel has been considered in the writ petition filed by Dr. Tomar. That writ petition shall stand disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (10) TMI 50 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Prosecution, Wilful, Evade Tax, Fresh Sanction, Quantum, Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... hold that the judgment of the single judge may be considered as per incuriam as not being considered in its proper perspective. In that case, as regards valuation invested for the purpose of construction of house was being annulled by the appellate court but there was other concealment also but those had not been discussed or considered. When the assessment had been made disclosing concealment of income and such assessment has only been modified to the extent of quantum and deleting some, then in no way it takes away the authority of filing complaint under the penal provisions of the Act. On a consideration of all these pros and cons and the legal provisions, I find and hold that this petition has got no force. At the time of framing of charge or explaining the offences, whatever might be, the Special Judge (Economic Offences), Dhanbad, shall definitely take into consideration the appellate order as subsequent events. For the reasons aforesaid, this application is dismissed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 49 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Rates, Construction, Plant ... ... ... ... ..... permissible, we are of the opinion that this was not the correct approach. Since we do not have sufficient material before us in order to examine the question whether one or two plates of centering material would constitute a plant as a whole or not we leave this question open to the Tribunal to take necessary evidence and determine the question first whether all the centering material put together will be used as a plant for centering purposes or individual pieces of centering material should be treated as sufficient for purposes of a plant so as to enable the assessee to claim hundred per cent. exemption because it costs below Rs. 5,000. The essential facts are not before us. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to examine the aforesaid factual aspect and determine the question whether each plate of the centering material can constitute a plant or not. We remand this case for the Tribunal to record its finding and decide the matter afresh. Reference is accordingly answered.
-
1997 (10) TMI 48 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Subsidy, Capital, Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... at the power subsidy is given not only for a specific period but also up to a specified quantum as in sales tax subsidy, capital subsidy and cash subsidy a percentage or a period is mentioned and an amount is fixed on the basis of total cost price. Here in the case of power subsidy, a quantum has been fixed. Thus, no distinction can be made between the power subsidy or any other subsidy. Therefore, we are of the considered view that such a grant of subsidy does not arise out of normal business activity and, therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that the same would not amount to a revenue receipt but a capital receipt. Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal was justified in its conclusion. Resultantly, the question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the ultimate result, the first two questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and the third question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1997 (10) TMI 47 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Right To Appeal ... ... ... ... ..... the appeal within a period of 10 days from today, the second respondent will issue the challan forthwith and the petitioner will produce the challan receipt to the third respondent within a week thereafter. If the appeals Exts. P-4 and P-5 filed by the petitioner are otherwise in order, the third respondent is directed to consider the same in accordance with law. It is for the petitioner to file stay petitions before the third respondent in the appeals. If the petitioner files application for stay within a period of two weeks from today, the third respondent will dispose of the same in accordance with law within a month thereafter. Since the petitioner has remitted a sum of Rs. 25,000 towards the demand made pursuant to Ext. P-2 assessment order, further proceedings for recovery of the balance amount pursuant to Ext. P-9 will be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the stay petition, if any, that may be filed as directed above. The original petition is disposed of as above.
-
1997 (10) TMI 46 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Export Market Development Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... y enhanced or expanded its original claim and that the assessee s case was not of setting up altogether a new claim. We quite agree with the view taken by the Calcutta High Court. Since the assessee had already claimed weighted deduction under section 35B in respect of some of the items and claimed the same benefit before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, on some more items, it cannot be said that the assessee set up altogether a new claim. The assessee having already set up the claim for weighted deduction before the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Tribunal was right in directing the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to entertain the claim of the assessee on additional items, particularly when there was no finding by any authority that the material facts in regard to the additional items were not available on record. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the aforementioned question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1997 (10) TMI 45 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... herefore, held that the claim of deduction under section 80J on the capital employed in regard to the two additional chambers of the cold storage was admissible. On further appeal, the Appellate Tribunal affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Clause (iv) to sub-section (4) of section 80J clearly states that section 80J applies to any industrial undertaking which, inter alia, in a case where the industrial undertaking manufactures or produces articles, employs 10 or more workers in a manufacturing process carried on with the aid of power. The assessee industrial undertaking is obviously not engaged in the manufacture or production of any article, inasmuch as it simply operates the cold storage, and therefore, the requisite condition as laid down in clause (iv), is not required to be complied with by the assessee undertaking. We, therefore, answer the aforementioned question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1997 (10) TMI 44 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rectification Of Mistakes ... ... ... ... ..... was taken by the Bombay High Court in view of the circular instruction of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, which the Board was authorised to issue. In view of the decision of the Bombay High Court, the question whether interest can be paid under section 214 in view of the rectification order is not free from debate. In the decision of the Bombay High Court, it is implicit that the assessee will be entitled to interest in view of the rectification order. From this decision it is apparent that two views on the question referred to this court for the opinion, are possible and, therefore, we are of the view that the question considered by the Income-tax Officer was highly debatable and that was beyond the purview of section 154. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in cancelling the order passed by the Income-tax Officer under section 154 of the Act. We, therefore, answer the aforementioned question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1997 (10) TMI 43 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Recovery Of Tax, Successor ... ... ... ... ..... ing that there was a moratorium and hence they should not take coercive steps. The petitioner should thank them for the undue lenience shown to it. The petitioner is certainly bound to pay the amount as it constitutes a liability of the taken over company. It should be remembered that the assets and liabilities of the fourth respondent have vested in the petitioner-company. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this original petition. In the result, the original petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled to their costs. The fourth respondent shall bear its own costs. The advocate s fee fixed at Rs. 1,500. In view of these findings and considering the fact that this relates to the assessment year 1974-75 and the writ petition was filed in the year 1987 and the writ appeal in 1991, we find no reason to take a different view of the matter and we accordingly affirm the judgment of the learned single judge and the appeal is dismissed.
-
1997 (10) TMI 42 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Advocate, Irregularity, Irregular And Invalid Orders ... ... ... ... ..... gone into the merits of the other contentions raised by both sides. Since we are holding that the fresh assessment order is not vitiated by lack of jurisdiction, it is for the Tribunal to examine the other contentions raised by both sides on the merits. In the light of the above discussion, we answer question No. 1(i) and 1(ii) in I. T. R. No. 125 of 1994 in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the light of the answer given to question No. 1 we decline to answer question No. 2 as unnecessary. We decline to answer question No. 3 also as unnecessary. Question No. 4 is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We decline to answer questions Nos. 5 and 6 as unnecessary. We decline to answer questions Nos. (i) and (ii) in I. T. R. No. 124 of 1994 as unnecessary. 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 (10) TMI 41 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Registration U/s. 12A ... ... ... ... ..... provisions of sections 11 and 12 from a date anterior to the date from which benefit is granted in the financial year in which the application is made. Since the consequence of refusal has the effect of denial of benefit, the principles of natural justice require an opportunity of hearing before an order in this behalf is passed on the ground that the reasons furnished by the applicant were not satisfactory. Thus, examined from any angle, the impugned order, in so far as it denies the benefit for the period prior to April 1, 1993, cannot be sustained and the matter deserves to be remitted back to the learned Commissioner for decision in accordance with law. Accordingly, this petition is partly allowed. The matter is remitted back to the learned Commissioner to consider the application for grant of benefit under section 11 with effect from the date of registration of the petitioner-society and for decision in accordance with law. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (10) TMI 40 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Attachment And Sale Of Property, Recovery Of Tax, First Charge ... ... ... ... ..... re of the view that the appellant s contention cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the appellant was correct in submitting that normally under rule 8 of Schedule II, the Income-tax Officer has to return the excess amount after adjusting the amount due to the Department. But in a case where there is a first charge, it is the duty of the Department to adjust the amount realised under the auction towards that first charge. Even if there is a mistake in the sale proclamation, that cannot be taken advantage of by the appellant. The appellant also submitted that Jolly Thomas had a first charge over the property. Further, Jolly Thomas had made the petitioner and the Department as parties to the execution proceedings. It is in those proceedings that the order was made to deposit some amounts towards the liability. That order has not been challenged by the appellant. In the above view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal. Hence, the writ appeal is dismissed.
....
|
