|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 333 Records
-
1999 (1) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT
Section 245D of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood prior to 1991 and thereafter
Held that:- Having regard to the fact that the said sub-section (1A) was removed from the statute book subsequent to 1991, we see no reason why the Settlement Commission could not have entertained applications, the like of which had not been proceeded with theretofore only by reason of the objections of the Commissioner ; and no convincing argument has been advanced on behalf of the Union of India in this context except to submit that the Settlement Commission did not have the power of review and that the grounds in regard to review were not satisfied. This is not a case of review at all. It is a case of fresh applications made subsequent to the amendment of the concerned section in 1991 when the objection of the Commissioner was not to be called for or taken into account.
The appeals are dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 32 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Interest, Waiver Of Interest, Writ, Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... he petitioners filed revision petitions before the Commissioner of Income-tax. The Commissioner has also passed a reasoned order after considering the entire matter in detail. It is for the authorities to decide to what extent the waiver has to be given, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be made in this regard. As mentioned earlier, the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax as also the Commissioner of Income-tax examined the matter in detail and has waived interest only to the extent of 50 per cent. This court, while exercising the jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot interfere with the matter unless there is non-application of mind by the authorities concerned. But, as far as the present case is concerned, both the authorities have considered the matter in detail and have given waiver of interest to the extent of 50 per cent. There are no merits in both the original petitions and they are dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 31 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Delay, Return, Interest, Waiver, Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... , 1981. The assessment was completed only by order dated March 15, 1988. By virtue of rule 40 of the Income-tax Rules, the assessment had not been completed within the period of one year and the delay being not attributable to the assessee they are right in claiming for waiver of interest under section 217 of the Act. As this was not conceded in the memorandum of his revision application also the relief was claimed. It is now submitted that as against the order refusing to grant the relief under section 217 of the Act an appeal has to be preferred. It is too hard to drive the petitioner to an appeal at this stage. In the above circumstances the claim in so far as section 217 waiver of interest is concerned is sustained. The Income-tax Officer is directed to pass fresh orders only in so far as the request of the petitioner relating to section 217 of the Act is concerned. In all other respects exhibits P-4 and P-7 orders are confirmed. The original petition is allowed in part.
-
1999 (1) TMI 30 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Search, Block Assessment, Regular Assessment, Penalty, Concealment ... ... ... ... ..... ment order exhibit P-7 and demand notice exhibit P-8. Original petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. o p /o p O. P. No. 20252 of 1998 In this original petition, the penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) are also challenged on the same grounds, namely, that the respondent has no jurisdiction when proceedings under section 158BC of Chapter XIV-B of the Act have been initiated. In this case, the assessment was completed under section 143 of the Act by assessment order dated February 5, 1998, and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act have been initiated and after following the procedure, passed an order of penalty. The petitioner has got further statutory remedies against this order. The grounds raised by the petitioner that the respondent has no jurisdiction when block assessment is pending, cannot be sustained for the reason stated earlier. Hence, this original petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. o p /o p o p /o p o p /o p
-
1999 (1) TMI 29 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Recovery, Writ, Notice, Intimation U/S 143(1)(a), Stay ... ... ... ... ..... spenses with the requirement of issuing notice of demand under section 156. All the machinery provisions of recovery of tax-assessed are applicable to the tax for which intimation only has been given. The contention, therefore, that the tax has not become due is not correct. The decision given in the case of Manmohanlal 1987 168 ITR 616 (SC) referred to above is not applicable to the facts of the present case. The other contention which is raised is regarding the application which is pending before the Commissioner of Income-tax cannot also be considered at this stage. It was for the petitioner to have approached the Tribunal when the second appeal was pending before it. There is no restriction in moving the application for stay before the Tribunal even if the application is pending before the Commissioner where the appeal is pending. In these circumstances, this court cannot under extraordinary jurisdiction interfere with the recovery proceedings. The petition is dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Reassessment, Notice ... ... ... ... ..... nk of the Deputy Commissioner. The only requirement in that situation is that the Assessing Officer should, before issuing the notice, seek satisfaction from the Deputy Commissioner on the reasons for the issuance of notice. On a consideration of the matter, we are of the view that the plea raised by Shri Mahajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Wealth-tax Officer was not competent to issue a notice is found to have no merit. If the Wealth-tax Officer had placed the matter before the Deputy Commissioner for satisfaction on the reasons for issuance of notice, the objection raised by Shri Mahajan would have no force. It is, therefore, necessary to verify if such a procedure was or was not followed. In the result, the writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and is dismissed. The petitioner may, however, file his reply to the notice (annexure-P-5) before the Wealth-tax Officer within four weeks from today and raise all objections as are available to him in law.
-
1999 (1) TMI 27 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Repairs, Renovation, Burden, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... e calendar year 1984 so as to claim deduction for the assessment year 1985-86. While arriving at the conclusions, the Tribunal has also considered all the points put forward by the assessee and the finding that no repairing work was carried out in the year 1984 is a finding of fact concurrently found by the Assessing Officer, Commissioner (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal. We are not sitting in appeal in the advisory jurisdiction while answering the reference under section 256(1). There is no violation of the principles of natural justice as contended by the assessee. The findings are not perverse and are not based on inadmissible evidence. There is also no denial of reasonable opportunity as contended by the assessee. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal is sustainable in law and there is no legal infirmity as contended by the assessee. In the above circumstances, we answer all the questions in favour of the Department and against the assessee.
-
1999 (1) TMI 26 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Sugar, Other Sources, Business, Lease, Plant And Machinery, Co-operative Society ... ... ... ... ..... es exceeding Rs. 500 are payable annually as also municipal charges, water charges, etc., which depend on actual user and not at fixed rate. The memorandum of association produced by the assessee also show that one of the objects of the assessee-company was to earn income from the hostel. The students were permitted to occupy the hostel pursuant to a licence which required them to vacate the premises on the expiry of the stipulated period. The running of the hostel was similar to a boarding or lodging house. In the circumstances, the premises were not let out to the students. There was no relationship of lessor and lessee vis-a-vis the students. It is a case of permissive occupation by the students. Hence income from the hostel constituted business income. The assessee-company runs this hostel as a business proposition and with a view to make profits. All essential facts point to income in a commercial sense. The reference is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1999 (1) TMI 25 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Accrual, Mutuality, Association Of Persons, Cement Manufacturing ... ... ... ... ..... to above amongst the members on pro-rata basis of despatches will not make the same income of the assessee. Before concluding, it may be mentioned that the Income-tax Officer as well as the Appellate Assistant Commissioner have given a finding that the objects of the organization do not constitute charitable purposes within the meaning of section 2(15) of the Income-tax Act. Against the said order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, the assessee did not carry the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. In the circumstances, we are not required to go into that question. Moreover, learned counsel for the assessee has given up the claim of the assessee under section 11 of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, question No. 1 is answered in the negative and against the Revenue. Question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. Question No. 3 is answered in the negative and against the Revenue. Accordingly, the reference stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1999 (1) TMI 24 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Tax Deducted At Source, Payment To Contractor, Transport Of Goods, Any Work ... ... ... ... ..... taken to supply. It is only by virtue of Explanation III added by the Finance Act, 1995, that advertising, broadcasting, telecasting, carriage of goods and passengers by any mode of transport and catering have been included. This Explanation cannot be considered procedural. The inclusive definition given by this Explanation, therefore, is to be made applicable only from July 1, 1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W. P. No. 32004 of 1994 has placed reliance on the judgment given in the case of Advertising Agency Association of India v. CBDT 1994 2 10 ITR 152 (Bom) wherein liability of advertising agency under section 194C was not upheld by applying the judgment given in the case of Chamber of Income-tax Consultants v. CBDT 1994 209 ITR 660 (Bom) and Bombay Goods Transport Association v. CBDT 1994 210 ITR 136 (Bom). In view of the observations made in the decision referred to above, this petitioner is also entitled for the relief. The petitions are accordingly allowed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 23 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking, Mastication Of Rubber, Special Deduction, Manufacture, Production ... ... ... ... ..... ssessee is not engaged only in the manufacture of masticated rubber simpliciter, but by resorting to the masticating process, several compounds are added and by virtue of that entirely a new end-product, that is, entirely a different item in commercial parlance, is produced. No clear finding has been recorded by the Appellate Tribunal as to what compounds are added by the assessee in the masticating process and what is precisely the end-product of the assessee. The Tribunal should have recorded a clear finding on both the counts. We, therefore, without answering the questions, remit the matter to the Appellate Tribunal directing it to record clear findings as to what chemicals were added in the masticating process by the assessee and what is the precise nature of its end-product. After answering these questions, the Tribunal will record a clear finding whether the assessee was engaged in the manufacturing entitling it to the investment allowance under section 80-I of the Act.
-
1999 (1) TMI 22 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Mercantile System, Contractual Liability, Additional Ground Rent ... ... ... ... ..... October in each succeeding year. The assessee kept its accounts on the mercantile system. The assessee claimed the entire amount as deduction in the assessment year 1967-68 although it had not debited the entire amount in its books. The Tribunal held that the amount payable for know-how was revenue expenditure and the entire amount was deductible in the assessment year 1967-68. On these facts, the Bombay High Court held that the agreement between the assessee and its foreign collaborator clearly provided for a consideration of Rs. 1,00,000 and that since the assessee followed the mercantile system of accounting, the entire amount was deductible in the assessment year 1967-68. It will be seen that in that authority, the accrued liability was not disputed and, therefore, reliance placed by the Tribunal in the instant case on this authority is misplaced. In the result, we answer the abovestated question in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1999 (1) TMI 21 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction, Wind Energy, Weep Commission, MFHC Commission, Depreciation
-
1999 (1) TMI 20 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Block Assessment, Search And Seizure, Power To Prohibit, Capital Gains, Unreasonable Delay, Illegal Search
-
1999 (1) TMI 19 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Processing Of Fish, New Industrial Undertaking, Backward Area, Production Or Manufacture, Special Deduction, Condition Precedent
-
1999 (1) TMI 18 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Appeal, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... ntioned case as the assessee has made no application to the Income-tax Officer for reduction or waiver of the interest under sub-section (8) of section 139 or under section 215, no question arises of the relevant authority having denied improperly a reduction or waiver of the interest and that being so, no revision petition can be maintained in that regard by the assessee before the Commissioner of Income-tax. For the reasons as stated above and in view of the judgment of the apex court in the case of Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1986 160 ITR 961, it is held that against the interest in isolation no appeal is maintainable. It is nevertheless a part of the process of assessing the tax liability of the assessee. Inasmuch as the levy of interest is a part of the process of assessment, it is open to an assessee to dispute the levy in appeal provided he limits himself to the ground that he is not liable to the levy at all. The reference is answered accordingly.
-
1999 (1) TMI 17 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Loss, Carry Forward And Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... d forward and we fully share that view. The submission made by learned senior standing counsel is that unless loss is determined pursuant to a return filed under section 139 the same could not be allowed to be carried forward. In this case, the Appellate Tribunal clearly held that the return filed pursuant to the notice under section 148 would be taken to have been filed under section 139(4) and rightly so. The view of the Appellate Tribunal is fully supported by many High Courts. On the facts of the case, it cannot be said that there was no return under section 139. The return filed under section 139(4) is nothing but a return under section 139 and, therefore, the loss determined pursuant to such return will be carried forward on the reasoning of senior standing counsel himself. Following the abovementioned authorities, we accept the contention of the assessee and answer the aforestated question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1999 (1) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Advertisement Expenditure, Prescribed Ceiling, Subsidy, Question Of Law, Entertainment Expenditure
-
1999 (1) TMI 15 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Writ, Alternate Remedy, Delay In Filing Writ ... ... ... ... ..... ance. That apart, the order was passed on August 29, 1997, and the application was filed only on January 12, 1999. In the above circumstances, prima facie, I do not find any bona fides in the application. This appears to be made only for the purpose of moving under Samadhan Scheme. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with exhibit P-3 order by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is open to the petitioner to move the Tribunal to consider the application. The Tribunal shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any of the observations contained in this judgment. Original petition is accordingly dismissed.
-
1999 (1) TMI 14 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y his wife was entered by the assessee in the account books of the firm, Sulemankhan and Mahaboobkhan Tobacco Exporters, the gift made by him in the year 1975 was from his personal account in the firm of Sulemankhan and Mahaboobkhan Jewellers. But, in the account books of Sulemankhan and Mahaboob Khan Jewellers, the entry on October 30, 1975 reads Debit October 30, 1975-Your wife, Jameela Begum, on February 3, 1972, gave Rs. 25,000 as gift to you. Cash taken for returning the gift to her. Regardless of the change in the firm s name or maintenance of separate accounts, the said entry in no uncertain terms proves that the gift made by the assessee on October 30, 1975, was the return of the same gift made to him by his wife earlier on February 3, 1972, and as such, section 5(3) of the Gift-tax Act, as it stood in the statute book at the relevant period of assessment, is applicable. In the circumstances, the reference is ordered in the negative and against the assessee. No costs.
....
|
