|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 301 to 320 of 382 Records
-
1990 (11) TMI 82 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... such a word would include court . The case on hand is not one reflecting such a situation. As such, there is no necessity to give any interpretation to the word authority as found used in section 132A of the Act. Since the order has been passed by the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate under section 451, Criminal Procedure Code, read with sections 132 and 132A of the Act, on a request emerging from the Income-tax Department, the legality of the order passed as such cannot at all be canvassed, inasmuch as he is legitimately entitled to pass an order under section 451, Criminal Procedure Code, respecting the return of the property seized and produced before the court to person entitled to possession of the property seized. The income-tax authorities, in the eye of law, can be construed as the person entitled to seize and to have custody of the property in the shape of undisclosed income. In this view of the matter, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 81 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Deduction, Estate Duty, Regular Assessment, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... y the Estate Duty Officer (the Officer now performing those duties) with notice to the petitioner. The petitioner further says that he has paid a sum of Rs. 36,500 by way of gift-tax upon the said deceased gifting property and whose value has been included in his estate. He says that the petitioner is entitled to deduct the said gift-tax amount paid by him from out of the estate duty payable by him. This is the second aspect which has to be gone into and decided by the Estate Duty Officer. It is evident that if the petitioner has indeed paid the gift-tax, he is entitled to its deduction by virtue of section 50A of the Estate Duty Act. Both these questions may be looked into and determined by the Estate Duty Officer after notice to the accountable person. The orders in this behalf shall be passed within three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him by the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
-
1990 (11) TMI 80 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Deduction For New Industrial Undertaking, Deduction U/S 80J, New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... y satisfied that, on the basis of the profit and loss account submitted by the assessee, the profit and loss of the new unit could reasonably be worked out and computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. A similar concession was made before the Tribunal on behalf of the assessee as is apparent from the following observation made by the Tribunal In any event, the assessee has undertaken to give those figures and it will be open to the Income-tax Officer to make such adjustments in the figures as are desirable on the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the assessee and since this exercise is yet to be performed, we refrain from expressing any opinion inasmuch as the entitlement to deduction and its quantum would depend upon the assessee s furnishing sufficient material to the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer. Thus, the question referred is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Department.
-
1990 (11) TMI 79 - PATNA HIGH COURT
HUF, Impartible Estate, Income From Impartible Estate ... ... ... ... ..... of section 27(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as also to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, it has been held by his Lordship Uday Sinha J., in the subsequent Patna case, CIT v. Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sah Deo 1986 157 ITR 358, that the income-tax pertaining to the impartible estate, which has been inherited by the assessee, has to be assessed in his hands in the status of a Hindu undivided family because impartibility of the estate of the assessee disappeared after the passing of the Hindu Succession Act and, therefore, such estate became a part of the Hindu undivided family of the assessee. Respectfully following the view taken by this court in CIT v. Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sah Deo 1986 157 ITR 358, 365, I hold that the view taken by the Tribunal is correct. Therefore, the question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. G. G. SOHANI C. J. -I agree.
-
1990 (11) TMI 78 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... tention before the Tribunal. If a ground is taken in the grounds of appeal but the same is not argued before the Tribunal at the time of hearing the appeal under section 254 of the Act, the legal effect of that would be as if counsel or the representative of the party has given up that ground though taken in the grounds of appeal. In such a circumstance, it cannot be said that a ground, though taken in the grounds of appeal but not urged before the Tribunal, is a contention which has been raised. Raising of the contention means urging the same at the time of hearing of the appeal itself. For the foregoing reasons, this application is partly allowed and, therefore, we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law to this court On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the Tribunal was correct in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 33,802 being legal expenses was covered by the provisions of section 80VV of the Income-tax Act.
-
1990 (11) TMI 77 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Company, Reserves, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... retained as part of the company s capital. Applying the tests laid down by the Supreme Court referred to above, what is found is that there had been ad hoc transfers by the assessee to the gratuity reserve fund, and, in such a case, the Supreme Court has clearly pointed out at page 574, that if an ad hoc sum is appropriated without resorting to any scientific basis, such appropriation would also be provision intended to meet a known liability. From the facts available in the statement of the case, and in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision referred to earlier, the Tribunal was in error in concluding that the amounts transferred by the assessee should be regarded as part of the general reserve or at least in the nature of particular reserve for purposes of capital computation for surtax assessment. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
-
1990 (11) TMI 76 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Advance, Earnest Money, Income ... ... ... ... ..... and arbitrarily. We, therefore, decline to answer the questions referred to this court by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the instance of the Revenue. But, at the same time, we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to restore the appeal to file and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law. We may incidentally observe that the observations in Kanga and Palkhivala s The Law and Practice of Income Tax , 8th Edition, volume 1, pages 123 and 179, as also the decisions in CIT v. Motor and General Finance Ltd. 1974 94 ITR 582 (Delhi) CIT v. Surendra Overseas Ltd. 1982 136 ITR 553 (Cal) CIT v. A. V. M. Ltd. 1984 146 ITR 355 (Mad) and CIT v. Balaji Chitra Mandir 1985 154 ITR 777 (AP) contain useful discussion about some aspects of the matter that may fall for consideration. The reference is disposed of as above. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1990 (11) TMI 75 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Limitation For Completing Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... point is the last day of the year in which the income was first assessable . The last day is March 31, 1980, and limitation would run out after March 31, 1985. That apart, section 30 itself postulates communication. An order of assessment comes into force only when it is communicated. This is not only by reason of section 30, but also for a more fundamental reason, namely, that a party against whom an order is made must be put on notice of that order. The date of making or signing the order is not determinative of its effect. At that stage, the order is only unilateral in a sense and not irrevocable it becomes bilateral or binding only on communication. Exhibit P-1 order of assessment came alive only with exhibit P-1(a) and that was beyond the period of five years. There is no question of the order becoming effective by reason of the bar of limitation under section 35(2). The writ petition is allowed and exhibit P-1 and all proceedings pursuant thereto are quashed. No costs.
-
1990 (11) TMI 74 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business, Public Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... his transaction, the trust has got modern premises in place of the old and there was no profit motive involved. The Tribunal has observed that it was a case of conversion of an old building into a modern building. We are informed that the surplus which is available with the trust is used for public charitable purposes. In order to have a modern building, it was necessary that part of the multi-storeyed building had to be sold because, without selling it, the necessary funds for constructing the building would not have been available. The conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is a finding of fact and no question of law arises. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 73 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act ... ... ... ... ..... ed was that there was no separate order. We do not think that the contention has any force. It is quite common even in judicial orders to pass interlocutory orders in the final judgment. Therefore, if an order recording a finding purporting to be one after an enquiry under sub-section (1) of section 30 is part of the assessment order, then there will be substantial compliance with the requirement of that sub-section. We, therefore, for the reasons given above, hold that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to exercise his suo motu revisional power, as there was no error of law in the appellate order. If there was no error, then he cannot assume jurisdiction. For the above reasons, we allow the revision petition and set aside the order of the Commissioner and restore that of the appellate authority. We have not referred to many other decisions cited, as we do not think it would serve any purpose in taking the case of the Revenue any further. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (11) TMI 72 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Change In Incumbent Of Office Of ITO, Failure To File Return In Time, ITO, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... o another officer who passed the order without giving any hearing. In the instant case, however, on receipt of the notices under section 18(2) of the Act, the assessee had neither put in any appearance nor filed any written explanation. It is true that the decisions in Anatha Naganna Chetty s case 1970 78 ITR 743 (AP) and Chitra Mukherjee s case 1981 127 ITR 252 (Cal), do seem to support the contention of the assessee but we are bound by the decision of this court in Murlidhar Tejpal s case 1961 42 ITR 129 (Pat) and we see no cogent reason to differ from that decision. Respectfully relying on the aforesaid two decisions of this court, I hold that the Tribunal was not correct in cancelling the impugned penalty order and, accordingly, the question referred by the Tribunal is answered in the negative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be remitted to the Tribunal. G. G. SOHANI C. J. -I agree.
-
1990 (11) TMI 71 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Representative Assessee, Trusts ... ... ... ... ..... he taxing officer. All that he did was that he invoked the jurisdiction for recall of the order of assessment and brought, in support of his case, a medical certificate showing that his karwari was ill. The Officer concerned accepted the cause as good enough and sufficient to recall the best judgment assessment. Ordinarily, it is not permissible for a revisional court to exercise its suo motu power to examine the sufficiency or otherwise of any cause shown unless it is very necessary. We are satisfied that the Commissioner had no such necessity to go into the validity or otherwise of the order recalling the best judgment assessment, particularly when the petitioner was assessed on the basis of his returns and no fault was ever found with the returns submitted by him. In the result, these tax cases are allowed. The orders of the Commissioner dated October 19, 1977, are quashed and the orders of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer dated January 25, 1975, are restored. No costs.
-
1990 (11) TMI 70 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act ... ... ... ... ..... ling of the return. The order also indicates that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was treating as if section 17(1) and section 17A should be considered together, and he treated section 17(1) as part and parcel of section 17A. Similarly, in exhibit P-6, the Commissioner read sections 17 and 17A together but he failed to notice section 17(3). The conclusion of the Commissioner that section 17A(3) would apply if tax is not paid on the due date is against the provisions of section 17(3) and section 65. It is also opposed to the scheme of the provisions for levying penalty, fine and prosecution provided under sections 20(1), 52 and 53. The authorities went wrong in their interpretation of the law. The error is apparent from the record. For the various reasons given above, the original petition is allowed and exhibit P-4 order and exhibit P-6 order confirming exhibit P-4 order are hereby quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to its costs, advocate s fee fixed at Rs. 1,000.
-
1990 (11) TMI 69 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ial order of the Accountant Member leaves no manner of doubt that, though he had written an order separate from that of the Judicial Member, he did not deal with the merits of the question involved. He did not differ from the Judicial Member only because the amount involved was only Rs. 5,200. The first order of the Accountant Member did not categorically state that he agreed with the conclusion of the Judicial Member and in fact by stating that because the amount involved is only Rs. 5,200 he had no comments to add, clearly implied that he had not considered the issue involved on merits. When the assessee brought this to the notice of the Tribunal, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that there was an error of law because the Accountant Member had to consider the issue raised on merits. Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the order or not is a question of fact and we agree with the Tribunal that no question of law arises. Dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 68 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Regular Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... T v. G. B. Transports 1985 155 ITR 548, has taken a different view and has held that, in such cases, interest is payable only up to the date of the original assessment. A similar view has been taken by the Allahabad, Punjab and Haryana, Andhra Pradesh and Bombay High Courts-Lala Laxmipat Singhania v. CIT 1977 110 ITR 289 (All) CIT v. Rohtak Delhi Transport P. Ltd. 1981 130 ITR 777 (P and H) CIT v. Ambala Electric Supply Co. Ltd. 1983 142 ITR 872 (P and H) Nizam s Religious Endowment Trust (Trustees of H. E. H.) v. ITO 1981 131 ITR 239 (AP) and CIT v. Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. 1984 146 ITR 452 (Bom) FB . The Full Bench decision of this court in G. B. Transports case 1985 155 ITR 548 is binding on us. So in agreement with the learned single judge, we are of opinion that exhibit P-9 order assailed in the original petition is not liable to be annulled or quashed. The original petition was rightly dismissed by the learned single judge. The writ appeal is without merit. It is dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 67 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... m the Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Govt. of India. The assessee is also not a small scale industrial undertaking because it does not own machinery and plant within the meaning of clause (2) of the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 32A as discussed by the Income-tax Officer in para 9 of the draft assessment order. On these facts and in these circumstances, the Income-tax Officer has rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee made under section 35B of the income-tax Act, 1961. We are, therefore, of the opinion that a question of law does arise out of the order of the Tribunal. We, therefore, direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the following question for our decision Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee is a small scale manufacturer and exporter and, consequently, entitled to deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? The reference is disposed of as above.
-
1990 (11) TMI 66 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... strued by the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to earlier. We do not find any material to support the conclusion of the Tribunal that the assessee had not concealed his income for the assessment year in question, especially in view of the applicability of the Explanation. We are of the view that, on the facts and circumstances of this case, there has been a total misdirection on the part of the Tribunal which had also not adverted to considerations which would be relevant in relation to the applicability of the Explanation and had, on an erroneous impression that the Revenue should establish concealment of income, deleted the penalty. We also hold that there has been no explanation whatever by the assessee and there was, therefore, no justification whatever for the deletion of the penalty for which also there were no materials. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
-
1990 (11) TMI 65 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Income, New Industrial Undertaking In Backward Area, Reference, Special Deduction, Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... Special Courts Bill, 1978, In re, AIR 1979 SC 478, 519 1979 2 SCR 476. We are inclined to the view that though it is always open to this court to re-examine the question already decided by it and to overrule, if necessary, the view earlier taken by it, in so far as all other courts in the territory of India are concerned, they ought to be bound by the view expressed by this court even in exercise of its advisory jurisdiction under article 143(1) of the Constitution. Therefore, what is applicable to the courts inferior to the Supreme Court in regard to the law declared by the Supreme Court in terms of article 141 of the Constitution will, with equal force, apply to the Tribunals which are inferior to this court over which this court has corrective jurisdiction under the Constitution. In the light of what we have stated above, we have to reject or repel the contention of Mr. Chander Kumar and answer the question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Order accordingly.
-
1990 (11) TMI 64 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Reference, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... , reference may be made to CGT v. Executors and Trustees of the Estate of Late Sh. Ambalal Sarabhai 1988 170 ITR 144 (SC) in which similar matter came up for the consideration of the apex court in which the amount of gift-tax involved was Rs. 5,661. It was pointed out by their Lordships that the magnitude of the mechanism for re-fixation of the value of the gifts and the difference in the quantum of the tax it might result in, do not bear a reasonable or sensible proportion, Having regard to the pecuniary involvement in the case, which is obviously small, we think we should not expose the parties to a fresh round of litigation. Interference was, therefore, declined in the matter. The amount involved under the application for reference is smaller than the one involved in the matter before the apex court. The Tribunal had also declined to make a reference on this very ground. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that it will not be worthwhile to interfere in the matter.
-
1990 (11) TMI 63 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... used for carrying the stones from the mines to the sales depot. As the trucks were mainly used by the assessee in its own business for carrying the stones from the mine-site to the sales depot, the case of the assessee is covered by entry No. III(ii)D(9) and not by entry No. III(ii)E(1A), and as such the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 30 and not at 40 . In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 40 and not at 30 on the trucks and dumpers used by it for its business. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, by holding that the assessee is entitled to depreciation at 30 and not at 40 , as the case of the assessee is covered by Entry No. 111(ii)D(9) and not by Entry No. III(ii)E(1A). No order as to costs. Let the answer be returned to the Tribunal in accordance with section 260 (1) of the Income - tax Act.
....
|
