|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 354 Records
-
1990 (8) TMI 74
The High Court of Allahabad dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner objecting to the attachment and sale of a house for tax arrears. The petitioner claimed ownership based on a will and was advised to pursue remedies in a civil suit. The petition was dismissed with costs and the interim stay order was vacated. (Case citation: 1990 (8) TMI 74 - Allahabad High Court)
-
1990 (8) TMI 73
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioners' applications under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were wrongly rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the petitioners' applications under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were wrongly rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax:
The common question in these cases is whether the petitioners' applications under section 273A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were wrongly rejected by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The applications were moved post a search and seizure operation conducted by authorized officers of the Income-tax Department at the residential premises of an individual on January 12, 1988.
Facts of the Case:
- The petitioners, including Smt. Ramjanki Devi, Nathulal Jain, and Mahaveer Kumar Jain, filed returns of income for the assessment year 1987-88, disclosing additional income and subsequently filed applications under section 273A of the Act for waiver of penalties and interest.
- The Commissioner rejected the applications, stating that the disclosures were not voluntary but made out of fear due to the search and seizure operations.
Petitioners' Arguments:
- The petitioners argued that their disclosures were voluntary, made in good faith, and prior to the detection of any concealment.
- They contended that the Commissioner did not provide a speaking order, which is required for quasi-judicial decisions.
- The petitioners cited various judicial precedents to support their claim that the Commissioner should have considered their applications on merits and provided reasons for rejection.
Revenue's Arguments:
- The Revenue argued that the disclosures were not voluntary but made after the petitioners became aware of the detection of concealed income.
- They highlighted that the petitioners' statements were contradictory and that the gifts mentioned were fictitious.
- The Revenue also contended that the petitioners had not satisfied the conditions for waiver under section 273A, including the requirement of voluntary and good faith disclosure.
Court's Analysis:
- The court examined whether the order passed by the Commissioner was a speaking order and whether the petitioners had made voluntary disclosures in good faith.
- It was noted that the order passed by the Commissioner was brief, cryptic, and did not address the grounds raised by the petitioners.
- The court emphasized that a quasi-judicial order must be a speaking order, providing reasons and addressing the grounds raised by the applicants.
Legal Precedents:
- The court referred to several judicial precedents, including Jakhodia Brothers v. CIT, Harjas Rai v. CIT, and Radhey Shyam Chandrika Prasad v. CIT, which highlighted the importance of voluntary disclosure and the requirement for a speaking order by the Commissioner.
Conclusion:
- The court held that the order passed by the Commissioner was not a speaking order and was liable to be set aside on this ground.
- The court did not delve into the second question of whether the disclosures were voluntary and in good faith, as it decided to remand the case back to the Commissioner for passing a proper order in accordance with law.
Order:
- The writ petitions were allowed, and the order dated September 12, 1989, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax was set aside.
- The applications under section 273A of the Act were restored, and the Commissioner was directed to decide the applications in accordance with law.
- Each party was directed to bear its own costs.
-
1990 (8) TMI 72
Issues Involved: The judgment addresses three key issues raised by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
First Issue - Deduction Claim for Commission Payments: The court deliberated on the consequences of not furnishing information under section 133(4) of the Act regarding commission payments. It clarified that non-compliance leads to a penalty under section 272A(2)(a) and not automatic disallowance of the deduction claim. The court emphasized that the absence of information may be a factor in assessing the claim's allowability but does not warrant disallowance solely based on non-furnishing of details.
Second Issue - Allowability of Commission Payments: The court analyzed the Tribunal's decision on the deduction claim for commission payments made by the assessee. Referring to past judgments, the court highlighted the necessity for the assessee to substantiate such payments with evidence and demonstrate their business purpose. The Tribunal's findings, considering the nature of the payments, the company's practices, and financial records, supported the allowability of the deduction claim. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the Tribunal's role as the final arbiter of facts and the need for substantial evidence to challenge its findings.
Third Issue - Treatment of Bad Debt: The court examined the case where the assessee's funds in a Karachi bank account became irrecoverable due to political circumstances. The court acknowledged that the debt had turned bad, and the assessee's decision to write off the amount in the relevant year was deemed appropriate. The court emphasized that unless there are clear errors in the decision, the court should not intervene when a trade debt is written off in a specific year.
The judgment provides detailed analysis and reasoning for each issue, emphasizing the legal provisions, past precedents, and the Tribunal's role in factual determinations. Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the assessee on the second and third issues, affirming the allowability of commission payments and the treatment of the bad debt.
-
1990 (8) TMI 71
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment proceedings u/s 147(a) for the assessment year 1962-63.
2. Legality of cancellation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c).
Summary:
Issue 1: Validity of Reassessment Proceedings u/s 147(a)
The Tribunal examined the facts and held that the assessee had disclosed all necessary material facts during the original assessment, including the cost of construction, plan, and area of the buildings. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) had initially found the disclosed investments reasonable. The reassessment was initiated based on a subsequent enquiry that suggested higher construction costs. The Tribunal found that the reassessment was based on a change of opinion rather than any omission or failure by the assessee to disclose material facts. Thus, the Tribunal held the reassessment proceedings to be invalid and cancelled the order of reassessment.
Issue 2: Legality of Cancellation of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c)
The penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed based on the reassessment order, which was subsequently declared invalid by the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty, and this cancellation was deemed legal in light of the invalid reassessment proceedings.
Conclusion:
Both questions were answered in the affirmative, favoring the assessee. The reassessment proceedings u/s 147(a) were invalid, and consequently, the cancellation of the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was legal. No costs were ordered.
-
1990 (8) TMI 70
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the financial assistance of Rs. 2,10,085 received by the assessee from the Government of Maharashtra constitutes a revenue receipt.
Summary:
Issue 1: Nature of Financial Assistance
The primary issue was whether the financial assistance of Rs. 2,10,085 received by the assessee from the Government of Maharashtra constituted a revenue receipt. The relevant assessment year was 1976-77.
Facts and Background:
(a) The assessee, a producer of Marathi motion pictures, received financial assistance under a subsidy scheme sanctioned by the Government of Maharashtra via Government resolution No. ENT 1075-F dated February 19, 1975, and subsequent resolution dated June 7, 1975. The scheme aimed to promote the production of better Marathi films and encourage Marathi color films over black and white films.
(b) The subsidy was released in four instalments based on the completion stages of the new film, "Pandoo Havaldar," produced by the assessee.
(c) The Income-tax Officer initially held that the sum constituted a revenue receipt and was taxable. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) overturned this decision, considering the subsidy a capital receipt based on Circular No. 142 dated August 1, 1974, which applied to subsidies for industrial units in backward areas.
(d) The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal reversed the Commissioner's decision, treating the subsidy as a revenue receipt, relying on the Supreme Court decision in V. S. S. V. Meenakshi Achi v. CIT [1966] 60 ITR 253.
Legal Analysis:
The High Court examined the nature, content, and objective of the subsidy scheme. Circular No. 541 dated July 25, 1989, issued by the Government of India, was considered relevant, stating that subsidies for regional feature films should not be taxed as revenue receipts.
Judgment:
(a) The subsidy scheme was intended to encourage the production of new Marathi films in public interest, not to supplement trade receipts or profits.
(b) The subsidy was aimed at assisting the assessee in acquiring a capital asset (the film), thus constituting a capital receipt.
(c) The subsidy was not meant to recoup revenue expenditure or supplement business income.
The High Court referenced several judgments, including CIT v. Ruby Rubber Works Ltd. [1989] 178 ITR 181 and CIT v. Chitra Kalpa [1989] 177 ITR 540, supporting the view that subsidies aimed at capital investment are capital receipts. The court distinguished the present case from Meenakshi Achi [1966] 60 ITR 253, where the subsidy was for revenue expenditure.
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the financial assistance of Rs. 2,10,085 received by the assessee from the Government of Maharashtra did not constitute a revenue receipt. The question was answered in the negative and in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.
-
1990 (8) TMI 69
The High Court of Bombay addressed five questions referred by the Tribunal regarding surtax assessment for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72, and 1972-73. The first two questions were answered in favor of the Revenue, the third question in favor of the assessee, and the fourth and fifth questions were also decided in favor of the assessee. The Court referred to previous judgments to support its decisions. No costs were awarded.
-
1990 (8) TMI 68
The High Court of Bombay dismissed the Department's notice of motion seeking to raise three questions of law regarding the interpretation of 'capital employed in the industrial undertaking' under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal's appellate order was upheld, stating that the decision in Lohia Machines Ltd. did not apply to the assessment years in question (1970-71 and 1971-72). The court held that the questions raised were not debatable and were already covered by a question previously referred. The notice of motion was dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1990 (8) TMI 67
Issues:
Validity of surtax assessment order completed beyond four years from the end of the assessment year under Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
The High Court of Bombay was tasked with determining the legality of a surtax assessment order completed by the Income tax Officer for the assessment year 1965-66, beyond the four-year time limit under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1961. The assessee, a company, challenged the assessment on various grounds, including the question of limitation. The Tribunal rejected the additional ground raised by the assessee regarding the time limit for completing the assessment, prompting the reference of the legal question to the High Court.
The assessee argued that, although the Surtax Act does not specify a time limit for assessment completion, a notice to reopen the assessment could be issued within four years from the end of the assessment year. Citing Supreme Court decisions, the assessee contended that assessments must be completed within a reasonable time frame. On the other hand, the Revenue's counsel maintained that no specific time limit existed under the Surtax Act for assessment completion and pointed out that the income tax assessment was finalized within a reasonable time frame.
The Court analyzed the provisions of the Surtax Act in comparison to the Income-tax Act, noting that while the latter prescribed time limits for assessment completion, such provisions were not directly applicable to the Surtax Act. The Court referred to relevant Supreme Court and High Court decisions to determine the interpretation of "reasonable time" for assessment completion. The Court emphasized that surtax assessments are dependent on the completion of income tax assessments, which had a four-year time limit for completion at the relevant time.
Ultimately, the Court held that the surtax assessment completed within less than two years from the completion of the income tax assessment was reasonable and not barred by limitation. Relying on precedents and the specific circumstances of the case, the Court answered the legal question in favor of the Revenue, concluding that the surtax assessment order was valid.
-
1990 (8) TMI 66
Issues:
1. Entitlement to deduction of penalty paid for belated payments to the Kerala State Electricity Board.
2. Claiming deduction of interest paid or payable by the assessee.
Analysis:
The case involved the question of whether the respondent-assessee, a public limited company, was entitled to deduct a penalty paid for belated payments to the Kerala State Electricity Board and whether the interest paid was deductible. The Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) denied the deduction of the penalty, considering it as a penalty for an infraction of the law. However, the Appellate Tribunal disagreed and allowed the deduction of the interest amount. The Tribunal held that the interest was not imposed by the relevant authority under the statutory regulations, and therefore, it was not a payment for violation of the law.
The Appellate Tribunal's decision was criticized for not specifying the exact statutory provision under which the interest was payable and paid. The High Court found the Tribunal's adjudication unsatisfactory, based on surmises rather than material evidence. The Court emphasized the importance of considering whether the payment of interest was for an infraction of the law, which hinges on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provision. Since the Tribunal failed to address this crucial aspect, the High Court directed the Tribunal to reconsider the appeal, taking into account the specific statutory provision and deciding the issue in line with the law.
In a similar case, the High Court had previously held that the failure to notice the exact statutory provision under which the interest was payable was a significant oversight by the Appellate Tribunal. The Court reiterated the principle that if the payment of interest is not due to a violation of the law, it is a permissible deduction. However, the determination of whether the interest payment is linked to a legal infraction depends on the interpretation of the relevant statutory provision, which necessitates the Tribunal's careful consideration in reaching a decision. Therefore, the High Court disposed of the reference by directing the Appellate Tribunal to rehear the appeal, focusing on the relevant statutory provision and deciding the matter in accordance with the law.
-
1990 (8) TMI 65
The High Court of Bombay ruled in favor of the assessee, a registered firm, allowing deduction of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation from profits of assessment years 1970-71 and 1971-72 to calculate total income. The judgment was delivered by Judge T. D. Sugla. The Department's counsel admitted the decision in Ballarpur Collieries Co. v. CIT [1973] 92 ITR 219 supported the assessee's position. No costs were awarded.
-
1990 (8) TMI 64
Issues:
1. Validity of service of notice on the petitioner.
2. Jurisdiction of assessment and penalty imposition.
3. Legality of directing the bank to prepare a draft in the name of the Commissioner of Income-tax.
4. Relief sought by the petitioner regarding the seized amount.
Validity of Service of Notice:
The petitioner argued that the assessment and penalty imposition proceedings lacked jurisdiction due to invalid notice service. The petitioner claimed not to reside or conduct business at the address where notices were sent. The respondent contended that notices were validly served at the last known address, and as the petitioner failed to respond, orders were passed. The court held that the validity of notice service required factual investigation, pending the petitioner's appeal. The court refrained from quashing the assessment and penalty orders in the absence of conclusive evidence.
Jurisdiction of Assessment and Penalty Imposition:
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the assessment and penalty imposition due to alleged lack of valid notice service. The respondent argued that the petitioner's failure to respond justified the orders passed. The court emphasized that without a thorough investigation, it couldn't determine the validity of service. The court deferred the decision to the appellate authority pending the petitioner's appeal, refraining from expressing an opinion on jurisdiction.
Legality of Directing Bank to Prepare Draft:
The petitioner contested the respondent's directive to the bank to convert the fixed deposit into a draft for the Commissioner of Income-tax. The respondent justified the action under section 132(3) of the Income-tax Act, allowing seizure of bank deposits. The court acknowledged the seizure provision but found no legal basis for instructing the bank to convert the deposit. The court ruled the directive invalid, emphasizing that the bank couldn't be compelled to prepare a draft for the tax authority.
Relief Sought by the Petitioner:
The petitioner sought the return of the seized amount with interest, arguing against the actions of the respondent authorities. The court noted the petitioner's fictitious address provided to the bank and lack of response during proceedings. Considering the petitioner's conduct and the existing demand exceeding the seized amount, the court denied relief in the current petition. The court stated that if the assessment and penalty orders were overturned in subsequent proceedings, the petitioner would be entitled to a refund with interest.
This detailed analysis covers the issues of notice validity, jurisdiction, directive legality, and relief sought in the judgment delivered by the High Court of Patna.
-
1990 (8) TMI 63
Issues Involved:
1. Recovery of tax from legal representatives of deceased assessee.
2. Application of res judicata.
3. Limitation period for recovery proceedings.
4. Validity and enforceability of tax recovery certificates.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Recovery of Tax from Legal Representatives of Deceased Assessee:
The court examined whether the amount covered by the eleven certificates could be recovered from the legal representatives of the deceased assessee. The relevant provisions considered were sections 159, 220 to 224, and rule 85 of the Second Schedule of the Income-tax Act. The court noted that recovery proceedings against a legal representative can only be initiated if they are declared as an assessee in default under section 222 after failing to pay the tax specified in a notice of demand under section 156. Rule 85 allows proceedings initiated against the deceased to continue against the legal representative without substitution in the certificate. The court concluded that the eleven certificates issued after the death of the assessee could not be enforced against the legal representatives, as they were not declared as assessees in default.
2. Application of Res Judicata:
The court considered whether the judgment in the earlier writ petitions (confirmed by the Division Bench and the Supreme Court) operated as res judicata, thereby preventing the petitioner from raising questions about the exigibility of tax, penalty, and interest. The court referred to the principle that decisions on matters in controversy in writ proceedings can operate as res judicata in subsequent writ proceedings or regular suits. The court held that the earlier decision, which confirmed the validity of the settlements and the recovery proceedings, operated as res judicata. Thus, the petitioner was barred from challenging the correctness of the levy at the time of recovery.
3. Limitation Period for Recovery Proceedings:
The court examined whether the recovery proceedings initiated for the tax dues of the deceased assessee were barred by limitation. Section 231 of the Income-tax Act provides that recovery proceedings must commence within one year from the last day of the financial year in which the demand is made or from the last day of the financial year in which the assessee is deemed to be in default. The court noted that the corrected certificates could not be enforced against the legal representatives, and no recovery proceedings had been initiated against them as required by sections 159 and 220 to 224. Therefore, the question of limitation did not arise for consideration.
4. Validity and Enforceability of Tax Recovery Certificates:
The court addressed whether the eleven certificates issued after the death of the assessee could be corrected and enforced against the legal representatives. It was argued that section 224(2) allowed for the correction of certificates. However, the court found that the certificates could not be enforced against the legal representatives without declaring them as assessees in default. The court also rejected the argument that the corrected certificates could be treated as fresh certificates, as the legal representatives had not been declared as assessees in default. Consequently, the eleven certificates in dispute were declared unenforceable against the legal representatives.
Conclusion:
The court declared that the eleven certificates in dispute were not enforceable against the legal representatives. The original petition was allowed to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs.
-
1990 (8) TMI 62
Issues Involved:
The judgment addresses the issue of the validity of canceling an Income-tax Officer's order u/s 140A(3) imposing a penalty, and the issue of whether failure to pay tax without reasonable cause applies to a specific case.
Validity of Canceling Order u/s 140A(3):
The High Court considered conflicting views on the validity of canceling the Income-tax Officer's order u/s 140A(3) imposing a penalty. The Tribunal initially held the provision to be ultra vires following a decision by the Madras High Court. However, subsequent decisions by other High Courts upheld the validity of the provision. The Court noted that the Tribunal was not competent to consider the vires of the Act and should not have ignored the provision of section 140A(3). The Court relied on previous judgments to support its decision, ultimately answering the question in the negative and in favor of the Revenue.
Failure to Pay Tax Without Reasonable Cause:
In a separate reference application, the assessee sought to raise a question regarding the failure to pay tax without reasonable cause. The Tribunal did not refer the question to the Court, finding that the assessee was not prevented by sufficient cause from making the payment on time. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the question of whether an assessee is prevented by sufficient cause in making a tax payment on time is a question of fact. The Court dismissed the notice of motion, emphasizing that the Tribunal's conclusion was based on cogent material and not perverse.
This judgment highlights the importance of considering conflicting views from different High Courts when determining the validity of legal provisions and emphasizes that the assessment of whether an assessee is prevented by sufficient cause in making a tax payment on time is a factual determination.
-
1990 (8) TMI 61
The High Court of Bombay ruled that the Income-tax Officer's reopening of the assessee's assessment for the year 1976-77 under section 147(b) was invalid as there was no fresh information to justify it. The Tribunal's decision to cancel the assessment was upheld. The court found that the reason for reopening was a mere change of opinion, not fresh information as required by law. The rule was discharged with no costs awarded.
-
1990 (8) TMI 60
Issues involved: Application u/s 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the taxability of unclaimed liabilities written back to profit and loss account under section 41(1).
Judgment Summary:
The High Court of BOMBAY heard an application u/s 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pertaining to the assessment years 1976-77 and 1977-78. The Tribunal rejected an application raising questions of law, leading to this appeal. The main question was whether unclaimed liabilities written back to profit and loss account are taxable u/s 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, considering the liabilities ceased by operation of the law of limitation.
The Department argued that section 41(1) applied as the assessee had previously benefited from deductions related to the unclaimed liabilities and had written them off. However, the Tribunal disagreed, stating that writing back the balances did not mean the liabilities had ceased to exist, hence section 41(1) was not applicable.
The Court considered whether there was remission or cessation of the liabilities during the relevant years, even if the balances represented trading liability and deductions were taken. Mere expiry of the law's limitation period or unilateral write-back by the assessee did not imply remission or cessation of the liability. Without evidence showing the assessee's intention to not honor the debts after writing back the liabilities, the Tribunal's decision aligns with the court's precedent in J. K. Chemicals Ltd. v. CIT [1966] 62 ITR 34. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, discharging the rule with no costs incurred.
-
1990 (8) TMI 59
The petitioner challenged Competent Authority's jurisdiction to issue notice under section 269D of the Income-tax Act. An agreement was made for property development. Competent Authority issued notice for property acquisition. Court ruled notice invalid due to prior no objection certificate. Petition granted in favor of petitioner.
-
1990 (8) TMI 58
Issues: Challenge to jurisdiction of Competent Authority and Valuation Officer under sections 269D(1) and 269L of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
The petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of the Competent Authority to issue a notice under section 269D(1) and the Valuation Officer to issue a notice under section 269L of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners had purchased a property for Rs. 30,00,000 under an agreement of sale. They had filed the necessary forms as required under the Income-tax Act. Subsequently, they received notices from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and the District Valuation Officer. The petition was filed challenging these notices. The court noted that one condition for assuming jurisdiction under section 269D/269C is that the apparent consideration is less than the fair market value of the property. However, the impugned notice did not provide any material to show that the market value exceeded Rs. 30,00,000. Without an affidavit-in-reply from the Department, the court lacked material to assess the Competent Authority's belief regarding the property's value, thus concluding that this condition was not satisfied.
Another condition for jurisdiction under section 269D/269C is that the consideration agreed between parties is not truly reflected in the sale agreement to evade tax liability or conceal income/assets. The Competent Authority's notice indicated a lack of clarity regarding whether the understatement was for tax evasion by the transferor, transferee, or both. Citing previous judgments, the court emphasized the need for the Competent Authority to apply its mind to this aspect. The court referred to a circular by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and a "No objection" certificate issued earlier, stating that the Competent Authority could not have initiated proceedings based on the circumstances. The circular was deemed applicable, and the court held that the Competent Authority's actions were without jurisdiction.
The court allowed the petition, ruling in favor of the petitioners and making the rule absolute in terms of the prayer clause. No costs were awarded in this matter. The court did not delve into other contentions raised, as the decision on the mentioned issues was sufficient for the judgment.
-
1990 (8) TMI 57
The High Court of Bombay dismissed an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal's cancellation of the Commissioner of Income-tax's order under section 263 was upheld. The issue of service fees received by the assessee from BASF (India) Ltd. was deemed not taxable under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement between India and the Federal German Republic. The Department's question on the agreement's applicability was considered academic and the appeal was dismissed with no costs.
-
1990 (8) TMI 56
The High Court Bombay ruled that a question of law arises regarding the assessment of notional income from property. The court reframed the question and directed the Tribunal to refer it within six months. No costs were awarded.
-
1990 (8) TMI 55
The High Court of Bombay dismissed an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the computation of chargeable profits under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The court held that income tax on the net dividend should be reduced, not on the gross dividend, in accordance with rule 2(i)(a) of the First Schedule. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, and the application was discharged with no costs.
....
|
9911796707
