|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 383 Records
-
1996 (1) TMI 85
The Commissioner of Income-tax sought to refer a question of law to the High Court regarding income from arranging hawala or bogus credit entries, but the Tribunal declined as it was a question of fact. The High Court found the application devoid of merit and rejected it summarily.
-
1996 (1) TMI 83
Issues:
1. Interpretation of depreciation rates for pay loader machine under Income-tax Rules, 1962.
2. Eligibility of pay loader for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia).
3. Classification of pay loader as earth-moving machinery for depreciation purposes.
Analysis:
The case involved a reference application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the depreciation rates for a pay loader machine. The respondent-assessee purchased a terex pay loader and claimed depreciation at 30%, which was challenged by the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Commissioner directed depreciation at 10%, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed depreciation at 30%. The Tribunal upheld the 30% depreciation for the pay loader. The Revenue contended that the pay loader did not qualify for depreciation under clause III(D)(8) of Appendix-I of the Income-tax Rules, as it was used for coal collection and transportation. The High Court analyzed the Appendix and concluded that the pay loader, being used for earth-moving activities, fell under the category of earth-moving machinery, justifying the 30% depreciation rate.
Regarding the eligibility of the pay loader for additional depreciation under section 32(1)(iia), the Tribunal remanded the matter for reconsideration by the Income-tax Officer. The High Court did not delve into this aspect as it was already under review. The Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision on the pay loader's classification as earth-moving machinery and its entitlement to 30% depreciation, dismissing the need for a reference. The judgment highlighted the specific use of the pay loader for earth-moving activities, aligning with the classification under the Income-tax Rules.
In conclusion, the High Court rejected the reference application, upholding the Tribunal's decision on the depreciation rate for the pay loader machine. The judgment emphasized the machine's use in earth-moving operations, aligning with the classification under clause III(D)(8) of Appendix-I. The Court did not find any legal question involved in the Tribunal's decision, affirming the entitlement of the pay loader to 30% depreciation based on its functionality as earth-moving machinery.
-
1996 (1) TMI 82
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider a different issue not raised in the appeal.
2. Inclusion of dollar loan as part of the capital employed for relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer in modifying the computation of capital.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to consider a different issue not raised in the appeal
The first issue pertains to whether the Tribunal had the jurisdiction to consider and pronounce on an issue regarding the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer (ITO) in passing the order dated January 18, 1975, and the assessee's right to apply for rectification, even though the assessee had not filed an appeal or cross-appeal on this issue. The court held that a successful party can support the conclusion of the subordinate Tribunal in an appeal filed against such a decision on other grounds, even if decided against him. The court emphasized that since the question relates to jurisdiction, it goes to the root of the matter and can be raised for the first time before the Tribunal if the factual matrix is available on records. Thus, the Tribunal was within its rights to consider the jurisdictional issue.
Issue 2: Inclusion of dollar loan as part of the capital employed for relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961
The second issue was whether the dollar loan could be treated as forming part of the capital employed by the assessee for the purpose of relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court noted that this question is covered by previous decisions in CIT v. Cochin Refineries Ltd. [1983] 142 ITR 441 and CIT v. Cochin Refineries Ltd. [1985] 154 ITR 345. However, the court decided not to address this question in detail since the reference could be resolved based on findings on other issues, specifically the jurisdictional issue.
Issue 3: Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer in modifying the computation of capital
The third issue involved the jurisdiction of the ITO in modifying the computation of capital in the order dated January 18, 1975. The court held that the ITO acted beyond its jurisdiction in modifying the relief granted under section 80J in the reassessment order dated March 11, 1974. The court reasoned that the findings in the reassessment order regarding the computation of relief under section 80J had attained finality and could not be changed in subsequent stages of the proceedings unless challenged by proceedings known to law, such as rectification under section 154 or reopening under section 147. The court also rejected the Department's contention that the order dated January 18, 1975, should be treated as an order under section 154, noting that the mandatory requirements of section 154(3) were not met, as no notice was issued to the assessee before modifying the computation.
Conclusion:
The court answered questions 1 and 3 in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's jurisdiction to consider the issue and the ITO's lack of jurisdiction in modifying the computation of capital. Consequently, the court declined to answer question 2, deeming it academic in light of the resolution of the other issues.
-
1996 (1) TMI 81
Issues:
1. Validity of reopening assessment under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Consideration of circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes as a basis for reopening assessment.
3. Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer to reopen assessment based on the same material considered during original assessment.
Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of the validity of reopening assessment under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Commissioner of Income-tax moved the court as the application to refer a question of law to the court was rejected by the Income-tax Tribunal. The Tribunal had upheld the claim of the assessee regarding deduction from incentive bonus in previous assessments. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction in a subsequent assessment, leading to appeals and further decisions by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, stating that the Assessing Officer did not come into possession of additional information to justify reopening the assessment.
2. The judgment also discusses the consideration of a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes as a basis for reopening the assessment. The Assessing Officer received a circular clarifying incentive bonus after the original assessment, which led to the reopening of the assessment under section 147(b) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the reopening was not justified as the information was already available in the appeal record. The court emphasized that the circular received after the assessment was completed did not confer jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.
3. Another key issue addressed in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment based on the same material considered during the original assessment. The court cited precedents to establish that for the exercise of powers under section 147(b) of the Act, there must be new material, not the same material previously considered. The court highlighted that the Assessing Officer's awareness of the deduction claimed and previous decisions by the Tribunals indicated that no new material was before him to justify the reopening of the assessment. The court rejected the applications, emphasizing the necessity of new material to reopen an assessment under section 147(b) of the Act.
In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the requirements for reopening an assessment under section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the need for new material and highlighting that circulars received after the original assessment do not confer jurisdiction for reopening. The court's analysis underscores the importance of considering fresh information and not relying on the same material previously examined during the assessment process.
-
1996 (1) TMI 80
Issues:
1. Whether the applicant wilfully attempted to evade payment of income tax and interest under the Income-tax Act.
2. Whether the charges framed against the applicant under sections 276C(2) and 230(1) of the Income-tax Act are valid.
3. Whether the revision court can interfere with the charges framed by the trial court.
Analysis:
1. The judgment involves the case of an applicant, the "karta" of a Hindu undivided family, who fell into arrears of income tax amounting to Rs. 48,739 plus interest for the assessment years 1974-75, 1975-76, and 1976-77. Despite owing taxes, the applicant sold a plot of land without utilizing the proceeds to clear the tax dues. The income tax authorities initiated acquisition proceedings under Chapter XX-A of the Income-tax Act, alleging wilful evasion of tax payments. Subsequently, criminal complaints were filed against the applicant under section 276C of the Act.
2. The charges framed against the applicant under sections 276C(2) and 230(1) of the Income-tax Act were challenged in revision before the High Court. The applicant's counsel argued that the delayed or non-payment of taxes did not amount to wilful evasion, emphasizing the absence of "mens rea," a crucial element of criminal offenses. The counsel contended that the applicant was willing to pay the taxes in installments as funds became available, and eventually cleared the entire tax debt before March 31, 1994.
3. The High Court, in its analysis, highlighted that revisional powers cannot be used to reevaluate evidence as an appellate court. The court emphasized that revision should only be exercised in exceptional cases involving procedural defects, errors in law, or miscarriage of justice. In this case, the court found no procedural defects or errors in law in the trial court's decision to frame charges against the applicant. The court noted the continuous default in tax payment by the applicant, disposal of property without clearing tax dues, and the need for further evidence to determine the urgency of fund usage. The court concluded that the trial court's decision to frame charges was not groundless or perverse.
4. Despite the applicant clearing the tax dues with interest, the High Court held that the charges should not be quashed solely based on the payment, especially considering the delayed payment after the complaints were filed. The court suggested that the Union of India should assess whether it was still in the interest of justice to pursue the prosecutions, given the tax payment and discharge of the acquisition notice. Ultimately, the revision petitions were dismissed, with the court emphasizing that it could not pre-judge the issue or interfere with the trial court's decision without clear procedural defects or errors in law.
-
1996 (1) TMI 79
Issues:
Interpretation of section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1970-71.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to five reference applications presented by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bhopal, under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The central question raised was whether section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, would be applicable to the assessee's case for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1970-71. The dispute arose from the inclusion of gold and silver ornaments in the wealth computation of the assessee, which were later claimed to belong to three ladies for personal or household use. The appellate authority had initially ruled in favor of the ladies, leading to appeals by the Wealth-tax Officer for the mentioned assessment years. The Tribunal dismissed all appeals, prompting the Commissioner to file reference applications seeking the Tribunal's opinion. The Tribunal initially rejected the applications, citing the decisions of the Tribunal and the High Court. However, the Department contended that subsequent apex court rulings had overruled the earlier decisions, necessitating a reference to resolve the legal question.
The arguments presented by both parties revolved around the necessity of a reference in light of the changed legal landscape post the apex court ruling. The Department insisted on the importance of seeking the Tribunal's opinion on the applicability of section 5(1)(viii) to the assessee's case, emphasizing the need for clarity and justice. On the other hand, the assessee's counsel argued that even without the application of section 5(1)(viii), the property in question had been added to another individual's wealth, rendering further pursuit by the Department futile. The Department, however, maintained that the Tribunal had not considered this aspect and urged for a reevaluation in light of the apex court's decision.
The court, in its analysis, highlighted the need for a qualified direction to the Tribunal to assess the necessity of a reference based on the submissions made. Emphasizing the pursuit of justice and the resolution of legal questions, the court directed the Tribunal to reexamine the issue and refer the common question of law if deemed essential for justice. The court's decision aimed at promoting fairness, preventing harm to either party, and ensuring the application of law and justice in the matter. The judgment allowed the reference applications, setting out conditions for the Tribunal's reconsideration and subsequent actions within a specified timeframe.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed the interpretation of section 5(1)(viii) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, in the context of the disputed property ownership and wealth computation for the mentioned assessment years. It underscored the importance of seeking legal clarity, pursuing justice, and ensuring fair resolution of the matter through qualified directions to the Tribunal for further evaluation and potential reference.
-
1996 (1) TMI 78
The High Court of Kerala dismissed the petition to quash an order refusing to waive interest on a taxable amount. The court held that obtaining a stay for recovery does not warrant waiving interest under section 220(2A) of the Income-tax Act. The petition was dismissed. (Case citation: 1996 (1) TMI 78 - Kerala High Court, Judge: N. DHINAKAR)
-
1996 (1) TMI 77
Issues:
Interpretation of beneficiary interest in trusts for assessment years under Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to reference applications by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax regarding the beneficiary interest of the assessees in two trusts, Lady Kanchan Bai Trust and Sir Hukumchand Trust, for assessment years 1980-81 to 1983-84. The Wealth-tax Officer initially assessed the interest in the trusts in the hands of the Hindu undivided family, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the individual assessees. The Supreme Court's subsequent decision in CIT v. Maharaja Bahadur Singh [1986] 162 ITR 343 reversed the earlier decision, prompting the reference applications. The main question was whether the interest in the trusts belonged to the Hindu undivided family or the individual assessee.
The counsel for the Department argued that the Supreme Court's decision should apply, while the counsel for the assessees contended that a declaration dated October 19, 1964, regarding the trusts' beneficial interests being transferred to the Hindu undivided family was not considered by the lower authorities. The Supreme Court's stance was that subsequent declarations did not impact the determination of whether the income belonged to individuals or their families.
The court deliberated on the necessity of a supplementary statement, highlighting that the Tribunal did not consider the Supreme Court decision or the declaration dated October 19, 1964. It emphasized the provision for rectification under section 35 of the Wealth-tax Act and the importance of current realities in legal proceedings. The court declined to answer the question at that stage and allowed the Department to seek rectification under section 35, and the assessees to present the declaration for consideration. The Tribunal's discretion was left intact, and parties were given the option to refer appropriate questions in the future.
The judgment concluded by disposing of the reference applications, permitting rectification applications under section 35, and leaving the door open for further references if necessary. The decision was made in the interest of justice, with no costs awarded but setting a fixed counsel fee. The order was to be transmitted to the Tribunal for action, with specific instructions for record-keeping and dissemination of the order copies.
-
1996 (1) TMI 76
The High Court of Allahabad ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the disallowance of Rasoi expenses as entertainment expenditure under section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held that ordinary hospitality does not amount to entertainment based on a previous Supreme Court decision. The case record was sent back to the Appellate Tribunal for further action. (Case citation: 1996 (1) TMI 76 - ALLAHABAD High Court)
-
1996 (1) TMI 75
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves issues related to the justification of using evidence recorded without affording an opportunity for cross-examination and the assessment being vitiated due to lack of reasonable opportunity of being heard and failure to summon witnesses.
Issue 1 - Evidence Recorded Without Opportunity for Cross-Examination:
The case involved a reference u/s 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where the Tribunal referred two questions of law to the High Court. The first question pertained to the justification in law of using evidence recorded behind the back of the applicant without affording an opportunity for cross-examination. The assessee, an individual carrying on a business of purchase and sale of silver ornaments, faced an addition to the assessment under section 69A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, due to unexplained silver ornaments found during a search. The explanation provided by the assessee regarding the source of the silver was not accepted as it was not found recorded in any books of account. The Tribunal affirmed the findings of the lower authorities, leading to the reference before the High Court.
Issue 2 - Lack of Reasonable Opportunity and Failure to Summon Witnesses:
The second question raised in the reference was whether the assessment was vitiated as the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner failed to give a reasonable opportunity of being heard and did not summon requested witnesses under section 131. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner made an addition to the assessment, which was upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The assessee contended that the subsequent affidavit filed by a key individual was not considered, leading to a breach of natural justice. However, the High Court held that the matter was more of merit rather than an apparent error for rectification, citing precedents where the Tribunal's decision was upheld despite similar circumstances.
This judgment highlights the importance of procedural fairness in tax assessments and the limitations on rectification based on the scope of the law.
-
1996 (1) TMI 74
The High Court of Allahabad upheld the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the fair market value of assets for wealth tax assessment. Deduction for estimated notional capital gains tax cannot be allowed. The Tribunal's decision was based on a previous court case and affirmed by the Supreme Court. The judgment favored the Revenue over the assessee.
-
1996 (1) TMI 73
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of provisions u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the correctness of invoking jurisdiction, entitlement to investment allowance u/s 32A for a cold storage and ice factory, deduction u/s 80J, and carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and relief under section 80J.
Entitlement to Investment Allowance on Cold Storage:
The Tribunal allowed investment allowance on the cold storage plant based on the reasoning that it qualifies as a manufacturing unit. However, the High Court found this reasoning erroneous as the definition of "factory" in the Factories Act cannot be directly applied to determine if a unit qualifies as a manufacturing unit under the Income-tax Act. Citing a previous case, it was established that operating a cold storage plant does not result in the creation of a new marketable commodity, thus disqualifying it from investment allowance u/s 32A. The Commissioner's decision to set aside the Income-tax Officer's order and remand for fresh investigation was upheld.
Investment Allowance on Ice Manufacturing Plant:
Due to combined accounts for the cold storage and ice plant, determining the exact investment for the ice plant was challenging. The Commissioner held that the ice plant qualifies as a manufacturing unit for investment allowance u/s 32A, directing further investigation by the assessing authority. The High Court agreed with this approach, acknowledging the difficulty in segregating investments but upholding the entitlement of the ice plant for investment allowance.
Deduction u/s 80J for Combined Units:
The combined cold storage and ice plant were considered as a composite unit under the Industries Act. However, the lack of evidence showing interconnection between the units led the Commissioner to order further investigation by the Assessing Officer to determine eligibility for deduction u/s 80J. The High Court supported this decision, emphasizing the need for proper investigation to establish the conditions for claiming the deduction.
Carry Forward of Unabsorbed Depreciation and Relief u/s 80J:
Referring to previous Supreme Court decisions, the High Court affirmed that unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward to future years if not absorbed against profits. Similarly, the relief under section 80J can also be carried forward, subject to conditions. The Commissioner's directive for spot inspections of machineries used in the new unit before making a decision was deemed appropriate. The High Court upheld the Commissioner's approach on these aspects, aligning with established legal principles.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, supporting the Commissioner's decisions on the issues of investment allowance, deduction u/s 80J, and carry forward of unabsorbed depreciation and relief under section 80J. The judgment emphasized the importance of proper interpretation of legal provisions and thorough investigation in tax assessments.
-
1996 (1) TMI 72
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that the share of profit from Shiv Shankar Soap Factory belonging to the assessee's wife was not includible in the assessee's income under section 64(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act. The court found that the income did not arise from assets transferred by the assessee to his wife, as the capital contribution was not a requirement for becoming a partner in the firm. The decision was based on the lack of evidence showing any investment by the wife in the firm.
-
1996 (1) TMI 71
The High Court of Allahabad rejected an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the taxation of a foreign employee's salary in India. The Tribunal did not accept the exemption claims based on section 10(6)(vi) of the Act but accepted the case under the Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement with France, subject to further verification by the Assessing Officer. The High Court found no error in the Tribunal's factual findings and rejected the application.
-
1996 (1) TMI 70
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh ruled that partners are not entitled to exemption under section 80L of the Income-tax Act for interest earned by a firm on bank deposits held in its name. The court referred to an amendment in sub-section (3) of section 80L, which disallows such deductions for partners. The Revenue's appeal was upheld, and the deduction claim was rejected.
-
1996 (1) TMI 69
The High Court of Kerala ruled against the assessee in a case involving deduction under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for a cellulose film plant. The Tribunal had previously determined that the plant was not a new industrial unit but an expansion of an existing business, leading to the rejection of the deduction claim. The court upheld this decision based on previous rulings, concluding in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee on both questions referred.
-
1996 (1) TMI 68
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves a reference u/s 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the invocation of jurisdiction u/s 263 in respect of the claim of the assessee u/s 80HH and 80J.
Claim under Section 32A:
The Commissioner found that the allowance under section 32A was wrongly allowed due to the use of second-hand machinery on which investment allowance was not permissible.
Claim under Section 80HH:
The Commissioner determined that the claim under section 80HH was wrongly allowed as the conditions stipulated were not met, including the restriction on the total value of transferred machinery. Additionally, the allowance granted was deemed in violation of the section as it was based on the capital employed in the entire business, rather than the specific unit.
Claim under Section 80J:
Regarding the claim under section 80J, the Commissioner concluded that the conditions stipulated were not fulfilled, as separate accounts for the industrial unit were not maintained, and the allowance granted was for the entire business instead of being restricted to the capital investment in the unit.
Tribunal's Decision:
The Tribunal found that further inquiry was necessary into the claims under sections 80HH and 80J. However, the Tribunal's approach was criticized for making inquiries on its own instead of assessing based on the conditions laid down in the sections. The Tribunal's decision was deemed incorrect as it did not consider all the materials required for assessment under sections 80HH and 80J.
Court's Ruling:
The High Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, stating that the Tribunal's approach was incorrect. The Commissioner had not given a finding but had remanded the case back to the Income-tax Officer for reassessment in compliance with the conditions for granting benefits under sections 80HH and 80J. The Income-tax Officer was directed to examine the matter afresh without considering any adverse observations made by the Commissioner.
-
1996 (1) TMI 67
Issues:
Interpretation of section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding deduction of bonus payable exceeding 8.33%; Applicability of the first proviso to clause (ii) of section 36(1) and its relation to the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965; Analysis of the second proviso to clause (ii) of section 36(1) and its conditions for allowing bonus payment exceeding the prescribed limits.
Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the interpretation of section 36(1)(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 concerning the deduction of bonus payable exceeding the minimum limit of 8.33%. The court delves into the first proviso to clause (ii) which restricts the deduction of bonus paid to an employee employed in a factory or establishment under the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965. The court emphasizes that the payment of bonus should not exceed the amount payable under the Act of 1965, which sets the maximum limit at twenty percent. The court further explains the provisions of section 11 of the Act of 1965, which outlines the conditions for payment of bonus based on allocable surplus and sets the maximum limit at twenty percent.
Regarding the argument raised by the counsel for the assessee that bonus was paid at the maximum rate of 20% under an agreement, the court clarifies that the existence of the agreement is irrelevant in determining the permissible limit for bonus payment. The court highlights the second proviso to clause (ii) which allows for variation in bonus payment beyond the prescribed limits under certain conditions. The court analyzes the conditions under the second proviso, emphasizing that the bonus payment must be reasonable concerning the employee's pay, business profits, and general industry practices.
The court dismisses the argument that the agreement implies a general practice in the business for bonus payment at the maximum rate. It stresses that the mere execution of the agreement is insufficient to establish industry practice without cogent evidence. The court agrees with the conclusion of the Tribunal that the permissible limit for bonus payment should be determined based on the provisions of the Payment of Bonus Act, irrespective of the timing of the agreement. Ultimately, the court answers the question referred to it in the affirmative, affirming that the bonus payment exceeding the minimum limit of 8.33% is not allowable under the given circumstances.
-
1996 (1) TMI 66
Issues:
1. Interpretation of penalty provisions under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957.
2. Application of amended law for computation of penalty.
3. Continuation of default for non-submission of return on a monthly basis.
4. Permissibility of cutting and splitting the default under section 18(1)(a) on a monthly basis.
Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh involved eight reference applications filed by the Commissioner of Wealth-tax, Bhopal, under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The common questions of law raised in these applications pertained to the computation of penalty under section 18(1)(a) of the Act. The primary issue was whether the Tribunal was justified in applying the amended law for calculating penalties even for defaults occurring before the amendment on April 1, 1976. The Tribunal had to consider the continuation of default on a monthly basis and the permissibility of splitting the default under section 18(1)(a) (i.e., imposing penalties monthly).
In the cases of various taxpayers, including Smt. Premlata C. Lunkad, Smt. H. H. Pushpamala Raje Puar, and Madanlal Haveliram, penalties had been imposed by the Wealth-tax Officer based on the unamended provisions of law. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal applied the amended law following the Supreme Court decision in Maya Rani Punj v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 330, leading to a reduction in penalties. The Commissioner filed reference applications under section 27(3) of the Act after rejections under section 27(1).
The Tribunal declined to make references under section 27(1) as it found no referable questions of law. It held that the penalties were imposed in accordance with the law prevailing at the time of filing returns and completion of assessments. The Tribunal's decision was based on the procedural nature of the computation of default and the applicability of amended provisions as per the Supreme Court decision in Maya Rani Punj case.
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, citing the procedural nature of the law and the precedent set by the Supreme Court. It noted that the proposed questions were not required to be referred for opinion since the matter was settled based on existing legal interpretations. The validity of section 18(1) of the Wealth-tax Act had been upheld by the Supreme Court in a previous case. Consequently, the reference applications were rejected without costs, with the counsel fees fixed at Rs. 750 for each side in each case.
-
1996 (1) TMI 65
Issues:
Interpretation of section 80RRA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the context of remuneration received by an individual from a foreign employer for services rendered outside India.
Analysis:
The petitioner, wife of the late Dr. Verman, challenged the rejection of her husband's application for approval of an agreement with a New York company under section 80RRA of the Income-tax Act. The rejection was based on the government's view that the relationship was not one of employer-employee and the agreement predated the provision's enactment. The petitioner argued that the term "remuneration" in section 80RRA is not limited to salary, as per Supreme Court precedents. The court noted that the government's reasons for rejection were legally incorrect.
The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation in CBDT v. Aditya V. Birla, emphasizing that a consultant or technician employed by a foreign company receiving remuneration in foreign currency is covered under section 80RRA. The court highlighted that the term "remuneration" is broad and includes retainership fees. The petitioner's husband, a consultant, received payment in foreign currency, making him eligible for the section's benefits, subject to conditions.
The court found the government's rejection reasons invalid. It clarified that section 80RRA came into force on April 1, 1975, applicable to the assessment year 1975-76, covering the petitioner's husband's agreement period. The court emphasized that the provision does not require the agreement to postdate its enactment. As the rejection lacked legal basis and no other disqualifying grounds existed, the court directed the government to approve the agreement under section 80RRA.
In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, quashed the government's rejection order, and directed approval of the agreement dated August 25, 1974, under section 80RRA of the Income-tax Act. The court mandated the government to grant approval within four weeks.
....
|
9911796707
