|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 370 Records
-
1991 (4) TMI 90 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ed to guard the cashew tope when the statutory authorities found that part of the expenditure for engaging the estate guards was certainly relatable exclusively to the agricultural activity of the assessee. The estimation of the apportionment of the expenditure by the authorities below is rational and since the assessee had failed to satisfactorily prove that the staff was engaged wholly and exclusively on agricultural farms throughout the year for its agricultural activity, apportionment was the only logical method of dealing with the claim of the assessee for deduction. The assessee has been unable to produce any material even before us from which any conclusion may be possible that the apportionment made by the statutory authorities defies either logic or reason or is otherwise perverse. The impugned order does not, therefore, warrant any interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, all the nine tax revision cases fail and are dismissed. No costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 89 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business, Business Expenditure, Income ... ... ... ... ..... 2 pence per pound to 1 1/2 pence per pound. The paragraph, read as a whole, clearly, to our mind, indicates that both parties, i.e., the assessee and the foreign company, had reconciled to the payment of licence fee at the rate of 1 1/2 pence per pound of rubber used during the calendar year 1966. It is only the execution of the formal contract that was delayed or happened in the subsequent year. Under the circumstances, we do not agree with Shri Dalvi that it is only a unilateral act on the part of the assessee-company to write off its liability. It is writing-off done by the assessee with the consent of the foreign company. In that view of the matter, we answer the second question pertaining to the assessment year 1967-68 as under The liability in respect of royalty written off to the extent it pertains to years other than the assessment year 1966-67 is to be treated as the income of the assessee under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 88 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... n or deletion of the disputed amount. This, he submits, has not been done by the Tribunal and, therefore, the matter must go back to the Tribunal for this exercise. We are not impressed by this argument. Probably, the Tribunal could have done better by recording a clear finding on this aspect of the matter. However, considering the fact that the amount involved is a small amount and more than 14 years have already passed in litigation, we do not propose to remand the matter to the Tribunal for giving effect to our order on the factual aspects of the merits, as we find that the affidavit of the chartered accountant of the assessee on record gives full details of the merits of the case and the contents thereof have been totally accepted by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal was justified on making the deletion. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There would, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 87 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Dividends, Reserves, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... ce shares should or should not be redeemed is a right vested in the company and not in the shareholders whereas in the case of debentures, the right to get debentures redeemed vest in the debenture-holders. The two cases are, therefore, not applicable in the facts of this case. Accordingly, following our judgment in the assessee s own case in CIT v. National Rayon Corporation Ltd. 1986 160 ITR 716, we would hold that the debenture redemption reserve is not a reserve and answer the second question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. We will also answer the third question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue subject only to this that when the matter goes back to the Tribunal for passing an order in accordance with the judgment of this court, the Tribunal will consider whether the gratuity reserve of Rs. 17 lakhs is in excess of the assessee s actual gratuity liability on actuarial basis and the excess, if any, will be treated as reserve. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 86 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Firm, HUF, Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... hai and Kulinsingh Manibhai v. CWT 1978 111 ITR 384 (Guj), Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers v. WTO 1979 1l6 ITR 646 (All) and S. Venka Reddy v. CWT 1986 159 ITR 683 (AP). Turning to the next part of the reference regarding rule 2B(2) of the Wealth-tax Rules, 1957, it will be seen that, as the assessee had accepted that the difference was more than 20 per cent., this rule was clearly applicable, in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Juggilal Kamlapat Bankers case 1984 145 ITR 485. In dealing with this matter, it must, however, be clarified that the Tribunal gave no finding that concealment of the said amount of Rs. 27,900 was not proved on facts. In this view of the matter, while answering the reference in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, we have no doubt that the Tribunal would now determine the fact of concealment of wealth by the assessee, if permissible in law. This reference is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 85 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ribunal did not permit the petitioner to urge the point does not mean that the petitioner did not raise the point. If he raised the point-as indeed he did it is clear that the Tribunal did not decide the point. In our opinion, this aspect of the case falls within the category of those cases where the question raised has not been decided by the Tribunal. We, therefore, hold that questions of law do arise out of the order of the Tribunal made under section 254 of the Act. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following questions to the High Court under section 256 (2) of the Act (i) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the assessee is entitled to exemption from income-tax under section 11 of the Act ? (ii) On the facts of this case, is the assessee entitled to exemption from income-tax if it is found that it contravened sections 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(h) of the Act ? Subject to this, the petition is allowed. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 84 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Business, Income ... ... ... ... ..... motive of the assessee in purchasing the actionable claim. We must, therefore, accept the assessee s motive for purchasing the claim against Tungabhadra Pulp and Board Mills Ltd., as what he says it was, viz., to avoid embarrassment to the said company at the instance of Messrs. Straw Board Dealers. Nothing has been placed on record to detract from this suggested motive on the part of the assessee. As the Supreme Court said in Parimisetti s case 1965 57 ITR 532 and as our court observed in Morarka s case 1981 127 ITR 111, the Department has failed to discharge the burden of showing that the receipt was in the nature of income. In the result, we answer the first question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The second question does not require an answer, as it is seen that, if the amount of Rs. 1,60,482 is deleted in assessing the total income of the assessee, there would be a nil return. The questions are answered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 83 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... relevant for the assessment. The petitioner has no case that the entire income had not accrued during the accounting period relevant to the assessment year 1978-79. There is therefore no question of law which requires to be referred on this ground. The petitioner had a further case that part of this income has been brought to assessment in the prior years 1974-75 to 1977-78. This contention had been raised before the Tribunal as well. The Tribunal, after consideration of the facts, came to the conclusion that there is no truth in this case of the assessee. The complaint about double taxation appears to be more imaginary than real. Even otherwise, if the income is liable to be taxed in the year 1978-79, the fact that it was wrongly assessed in some other year will not enable the assessee to contend that the instant assessment is invalid in law. We do not find any question of law liable to be referred to this court under section 256(2). The application is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 82 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Debt Owed, Deduction, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... om tax. We drew this presumption as we find that, the limit of exemption in the two years under reference was an overall limit which was applicable to a number of clauses. On course, clause (iv) was not included therein. Accordingly, we answer the questions thus The loan to the extent of Rs. 3,050 obtained on the security of the life insurance policy is hit by the provision of section 2(m)(ii). The loan of Rs. 42,500 on the security of the house property will require examination by the Tribunal while giving effect to the judgment of this court. In other words, if the value of the house property is found to be less than Rs. 1 lakh that is wholly exempt, then the loan amount will not be excluded under section 2(m)(ii) otherwise, it will have to be excluded. So far as loans taken against shares are concerned, they will not be hit by section 2(m)(ii). The loan taken against the motor car which is admittedly not exempt will have to be allowed as a liability. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 81 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Unexplained Investments ... ... ... ... ..... examination in depth and can be considered at the time the reference is being heard. Suffice it to say that a question of law arises on this point and that it is liable to be referred. In the circumstances, while declining to refer any question in relation to the matter as to whether the amounts brought to assessment really belonged to Chellappan Chettiar, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to refer the following question of law for decision under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in upholding the assessment of the entirety of the amounts of rupees two lakhs, rupees three lakhs and rupees fifty thousand in the assessments for the respective years 1967-68, 1969-70 and 1971-72 ? The Tribunal shall draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid question for the opinion of this court. The original petitions are allowed as stated above. No costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 80 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... Assistant Controller, is included, this value will come to Rs. 1,07,759. This apart, the Appellate Assistant Controller gave a categorical finding that, since the business of the two firms was dealing only in ordinary non-standard goods which had no trade or brand names, the submission that it had goodwill was not valid. Incidentally, the business of the two firms was on wholesale basis. This finding, it appears, was not challenged before the Tribunal. In any event, there is no question of law even suggested by the Department challenging this finding of fact. In the above view of the matter, even if the question of law referred to this court is answered in favour of the Department, it is not going to affect the result, as the finding of fact that there was no goodwill remains unchallenged. Accordingly, we are of the view that the question referred herein is of academic interest and need not, therefore, be answered. The reference is returned unanswered. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Deduction, Firm, Partners ... ... ... ... ..... ry and had made deposits with the bank. Against the said deposits, a loan was taken which was invested in the business. A claim was made with regard to the interest paid on the loan so taken and that interest has been allowed as a deduction under section 67(3) of the Income-tax Act. The Tribunal found as a fact that the loan had been taken by the assessee and this formed the capital which was invested in the business. The answer to the question proposed, on the facts as found, is self-evident and no question of law arises. Dismissed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 78 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income From Contract, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... e and liability for penalty under section 271(1)(c) in relation to the income from contract works. We, therefore, allow the original petitions and direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 Assessment year 1966-67 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that penalty was liable to be imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the year 1966-67 on the ground of concealment of income relating to contract works ? Assessment year 1967-68 Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that penalty was liable to be imposed on the assessee under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the year 1967-68 on the ground of concealment of income relating to contract works?
-
1991 (4) TMI 77 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Question ... ... ... ... ..... 1977 106 ITR 626. The judgments in these cases were in answer to references under section 256 of the Act and the question whether a reference ought to have been made did not arise for consideration. For the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs, we hold that question of law arises out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal made under section 254 of the Act. We, therefore, direct the Incometax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to state the case and refer the following question to the High Court under section 256 (2) of the Act Whether, having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case and having regard to the provisions of section 271(1) of the Act, the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee cannot be said to have concealed any income or intended to furnish inaccurate particulars thereof, and that, therefore, penalty was not leviable under section 271(1)(c) ? The petition is allowed. In the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 76 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Company, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ? The matter here is squarely covered by the judgments of this court in CIT v. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd. 1989 178 ITR 635 and CIT v. Road Master Industries of India (P) Ltd. 1989 179 ITR 245. This view has since been given the seal of approval by the Supreme Court in Second ITO v. Stumpp, Schuele and Somappa P. Ltd. 1991 187 ITR 108. We, accordingly, answer the question in favour of the assessee and against Revenue. This reference is disposed of accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 75 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Investment Allowance, Plant ... ... ... ... ..... not in dispute. The only question is whether the hotel will constitute a plant for the purpose of allowing depreciation. Thus, there is a pure question of law which has to be referred by the Tribunal under section 256 (1). We, therefore, allow the original petition. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, is directed to draw up a statement of the case and to refer the following question of law for the opinion of this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the hotel run by the assessee was plant entitled to depreciation at 15 and investment allowance ?
-
1991 (4) TMI 74 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ore, satisfied that there are questions of law arising for consideration. The questions raised by the petitioner in paragraph 7 of the original petition truly reflect the controversy between the parties. They have to be referred to this court for opinion. We, therefore, allow this original petition. We direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, to draw up a statement of the case and refer the following questions of law for the opinion of this court under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in finding that the Income-tax Officer did not reject the books of the assessee ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in finding that the income of Rs. 1,12,906 determined by the Income-tax Officer in the first instance has only to be taken as the reasonable business income of the assessee for this assessment year ?
-
1991 (4) TMI 73 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... eated by the recent drive against economic offenders and the wide powers given to income-tax authorities under the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, and expect that those with undisclosed income and wealth will take advantage of the Scheme. In view of the above, we allow the writ petition and quash the order, annexure P-1, dated March 28, 1979, in C.W.P. No. 93 of 1979 and the demand created therein, order annexure P-1 dated December 26, 1979, along with the demand created thereunder as well as penalty notice, annexure P-4, in C.W.P. No. 174 of 1980 and to direct the respondents to give effect to the declaration made by the petitioner under section 15 of the Ordinance. In view of the quashing of the orders, a fresh order may be passed by respondent No. 1 in accordance with law for the assessment years in question after giving full effect to the declarations made by the petitioner under the provisions of section 15 of the Ordinance. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 72 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... have to be judged as to whether the assessee harboured the required mens rea or not. Another aspect of the matter is that the occurrence is of the year 1970-71. Acquittal judgment was rendered by the lower appellate court on July 16, 1981. Criminal Appeal No. 204 - DBA of 1982 against it was filed on January 4, 1982. Leave to appeal was granted therein on March 29, 1982. In S. Guin v. Grindlays Bank Ltd., AIR 1986 SC 289, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed that inordinate delay of nearly six years that had ensued after the judgment of acquittal would justify the termination of the criminal proceedings. In the present case, the delay is of twenty years from the date of occurrence and more than ten years from the date of the judgment of acquittal. Termination of criminal proceedings ordered by the learned lower appellate court was, therefore, the safest order in terms of the Supreme Court guidelines aforesaid and we see no reason to disturb it in the present appeal.
-
1991 (4) TMI 71 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Debt Due, Deduction, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... dication in the Act, the deduction for such debts will have to be allowed in the manner which is most beneficial to the assessee. Accordingly, if, for instance, a debt of Rs. 1 lakh has been secured on a house property the value of which is Rs. 1,50,000 and exemption of Rs. 1 lakh is allowed under section 5(1)(v), the debt will have to be allowed to the extent of Rs. 50,000 being the value of the house property which is otherwise includible in the net wealth. The view taken by the Board in this circular appears to be correct and in accordance with law. A reading of the order of the Tribunal shows that it has upheld the order of the Wealth-tax Officer which is in conformity with the position as explained and clarified in the circular of the Board. In other words, the Wealth-tax Officer had correctly decided the matter before him. Both the questions posed are, consequently, decided in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and this reference is disposed of accordingly.
....
|
