|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 382 Records
-
1990 (11) TMI 62 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... omputation of capital gains, considered the meaning to be given to the expression in connection with occurring in that section. Following an English decision, In re Nanaimo Community Hotel Ltd. 1944 4 DLR 638, in connection with was held to include matters occurring prior to as well as subsequent to or consequent upon so long as they are related to the principal thing. In other words, whatever has nexus to the travel undertaken in connection with the work outside the headquarters resulting in the stay, such stay, whether actual work in connection with the company s affairs was carried out or not, would be relatable to the travel undertaken which was undisputably in connection with the work of the company and, therefore, the only logical inference to be drawn is that the stay also was in connection with the work as it is intimately connected with the travel undertaken. Therefore, we must answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. We do so accordingly.
-
1990 (11) TMI 61 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Income Tax, Interest On Securities ... ... ... ... ..... e interest on securities should also be considered as business income ? The Madras High Court answered the question in the negative. In other words, in the operative portion of the order, their Lordships of the Madras High Court held that the assessee was eligible only for the allowance of Rs. 24,763 by way of entertainment expenses and a proportion of that amount had to be allowed under section 20 as deduction from interest on securities and the balance would be considered as allowance from profits and gains of business. In other words, while the amount allowed under section 37 to determine the same, the apportionment was directed considering that the income in respect of which the claim arose was under different heads of income and only permissible allowance under the relevant heads should be allowed. We are in agreement with that reasoning and on the admitted facts of this case, we also answer the question in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
1990 (11) TMI 60 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Firm, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... he conditions contemplated under section 182(4) of the Act have been fulfilled or not. The question of recoverability or otherwise of the tax from the partner is essentially one of fact and should have been agitated by the Revenue at the appropriate stage. We find that, neither before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner nor even before the Tribunal, the Revenue had taken the stand that the factual question regarding the irrecoverability of the tax from the partner should have been further investigated by the Income-tax Officer. We do not, therefore, see any justification whatever for entertaining this belated attempt of the Revenue at this stage to settle a vital question of fact which had gone almost unnoticed by the Revenue at the appropriate earlier stages of the proceedings. We, therefore, answer the second question referred to us also in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The assessee will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500. One set.
-
1990 (11) TMI 59 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... tend the exemption under the said clause in respect of the value of land, building, etc. I am unable to accept this contention as well. In the case of Innamuri Gopalan v. State of A. P. 1964 2 SCR 888, 889, it has been held that If the tax payer is within the plain terms of the exemption, he cannot be denied its benefit by calling in aid any supposed intention of the exemption authority. The view taken by me also finds support from the case of CWT v. D. C. Barley Dharmaraja 1986 158 ITR 369 (Mad). For all these reasons, I hold that the Tribunal has correctly allowed exemption to the assessee. My answer to the questions referred in all the four cases is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Assistant Registrar of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, under the seal of this court. G. G. SOHANI C. J. -I agree.
-
1990 (11) TMI 58 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... come-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the additional conveyance allowance received by the assessee from his employer was entitled to exemption under section 10(14) of the Income-tax Act ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the assessee, a salaried employee of L.I.C., was entitled to deduction at 40 on the incentive bonus received from his employer The income-tax case is accordingly allowed. No costs.
-
1990 (11) TMI 57 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... roceeded to recover the amount of Rs. 42,089 as against the petitioner. In pursuance of the said recovery, the bank account of the petitioner has already been attached and the authorities are proceeding to recover the said amount from the petitioner. Since the petitioner s application under section 154 of the Act as aforesaid is still pending, we direct the Tax Recovery Officer not to proceed with the recovery as against the petitioner for the said amount till the disposal of the application of the petitioner pending before the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax. We feel that the authority concerned will dispose of the said application of the petitioner preferably within one month of the date on which the certified copy of this order is produced before him. The petitioner should file a certified copy of this order within one week before the Assistant Commissioner of Incometax. A certified copy of this order may be given to learned counsel for the petitioner within 24 hours.
-
1990 (11) TMI 56 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
"Concern" In S. 13(3)(e), Charitable Trust, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... raised by the Revenue have been referred by the Tribunal. This particular question was, however, refused. Learned standing counsel for the Revenue says that the question sought to be referred is a question of law and, since there is no decision of any court on this point, it is eminently a fit case for granting the direction prayed for. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee says that the question does not arise from the order of the Tribunal since it was not argued before it. However, on a perusal of the order of the Tribunal, we find that this question was indeed argued and that the Tribunal has expressed its opinion thereon. Since other questions have been referred and this question appears to be connected with those questions, it is but proper that this question also should be referred. Accordingly, the aforesaid applications are allowed. The Tribunal is directed to draw up a statement of the case accordingly and refer the question mentioned above. No costs.
-
1990 (11) TMI 55 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. No objection was taken to the disallowance of the amount in the hands of the firm. What was, however, argued was that the amount of salary should not be shown as part of the share income. We are unable to see how this controversy is relevant in the assessment of the firm. It may be relevant in the case of assessment of the concerned Hindu undivided family or in the individual assessment of the karta of the Hindu undivided family, if any. But it is certainly not relevant so far as the firm is concerned. The Tribunal also says that the disallowance of the said amount paid by way of salary to the partners is not in question before it. In the circumstances, it must be held that the question referred does not really arise in the assessment of the firm and does not need any answer at our hands. Accordingly, we decline to answer the question referred on the ground that such question cannot arise in the assessment of the assessee-firm. No costs.
-
1990 (11) TMI 54 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... cer but, before he could give a decision, he was transferred. The new Income-tax Officer passed orders without giving an opportunity of oral hearing. It was thus held that the order passed must be deemed to have been arrived at without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing. That was a case where the Income-tax Officer thought that an opportunity of personal hearing was called for and gave it. The succeeding Income-tax Officer could not have departed from the order. The second decision is one where the penalty proceedings were kept in abeyance pending the appeal against the assessment order. After the appeal was disposed of, penalty proceedings were finalised without giving any opportunity whatsoever. It was under those circumstances that it was held that the order was bad. For the above reasons question No. 4 is also answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference is answered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (11) TMI 53 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Plant ... ... ... ... ..... tion 43(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and in holding that depreciation at 10 could not be claimed in respect thereof ? An identical question was answered in favour of the assessee by Bench of this court in S. K. Tulsi and Sons v. CIT 1991 187 ITR 685. Following the said decision, the question referred herein is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1990 (11) TMI 52 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... value of the assets in arriving at the fair market value of the same for the purpose of the Wealth-tax Act ? It is stated by counsel for both the parties that this question has to be answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, following the decision of this court in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT 1979 119 ITR 258. The reference is answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1990 (11) TMI 51 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... o it under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? It is agreed by counsel for both the parties that, following the decision of the Supreme Court in Lohia Machines Ltd. v. Union of India 1985 152 ITR 308, this question must be answered in the negative (sic.), i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The income-tax reference is answered accordingly.
-
1990 (11) TMI 50 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uestion No. 2 is premised on the assumption that the Revenue did not rely upon rule 1 D. In this case too, it does not clearly appear from the record that, after the receipt of the report of the arbitrators with respect to valuation under section 24(6), any specific objection was raised by the Revenue stating that the valuation made by the arbitrator is opposed to and is not in accordance with rule 1D. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not open to the Revenue to rely upon rule 1D now, since it had not put forward any argument based thereon. Question No. 2 is answered accordingly. In view of the answer to question No. 2, question No. 3 does not really arise. Once the record discloses that no objection was raised to the valuation made by the arbitrators on the ground that it was opposed to rule 1D, the question of the Tribunal not accepting the said report does not arise. Accordingly, we decline to answer question No. 3. Reference ordered accordingly. No costs.
-
1990 (11) TMI 49 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Shares, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ht in setting aside the valuation of the shares made as per rule 1 D of the Wealth -tax Rules ? 3. Whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in following the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court in CWT v. Mahadeo Jalan 1972 86 ITR 621 which was passed in respect of the assessment years 1956-57 and 1958-59 when rule 1D was not in existence (rule 1D was introduced by the Wealth-tax (Amendment) Rules, 1967, issued under Notification No. GSR 1536, dated October 6, 1967, with effect from that date) ? Having heard the parties and, in view of the decisions in CWT v. Sripat Singhania 1978 112 ITR 363 (All) and Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT 1979 119 ITR 258 (All), we are of the opinion that questions of law do arise but it would be sufficient if we refer questions Nos. 1 and 3 since question No. 2 is implicit in these two questions. Accordingly the Tribunal shall state questions Nos. 1 and 3 under section 27(3) of the Wealth-tax Act. The application is disposed of accordingly.
-
1990 (11) TMI 48 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Company, Depreciation, Developement Rebate, New Industrial Undertaking, Previous Year, Special Deduction
-
1990 (11) TMI 47 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Banking, Business Loss, Deduction, Property ... ... ... ... ..... h a nexus between the borrowings and the acquisition and construction of the properties in question and, therefore, the amount of interest payable on the borrowings was not deductible under section 24(1)(vi) of the Income-tax Act. We see no reason to doubt or disturb the finding arrived at by the Tribunal. The question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, the finding of the Tribunal is that the assessee was not carrying on banking business at all and if that is so, the several amounts claimed by way of deduction of interest on decretal amounts and old deposits, etc., could not have been deducted as business loss. Since the finding of the Tribunal is one of fact that the assessee was not carrying on banking business, there is no question of deducting the amount as business loss. The question referred is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1990 (11) TMI 46 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Calling For Reference, High Court, Income Tax Authorities ... ... ... ... ..... in the incumbent, it was desirable for the new Income-tax Officer to hear the assessee before deciding for or against the imposition of penalty. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the observations as corrected show that the Tribunal held that it was desirable for the new Income-tax Officer to give a hearing to the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that no opportunity of hearing was given after the second notice. We are surprised that such a submission has been made because in the order passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposing penalty under section 140A, it is specifically stated that the assessee s counsel wrote letters dated February 1, 1985, and February 8, 1985, in which it was contended that the company s liquidity had diminished. Furthermore, no such question of law is sought to be raised either in the application under section 256(1) or 256(2). The petition is wholly without any merit. The same is dismissed. Petition dismissed.
-
1990 (11) TMI 45 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Notice, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... n-making process as found by the Hon ble Supreme Court in its decision in State of U. P. v. Dharmender Prasad Singh (Maharaja), AIR 1989 SC 997. Unless there are no recorded reasons to initiate the proceedings under sections 147 and 148 of the Income-tax Act or the reasons are prima facie perverse necessitating interference by the writ court, this court is not inclined to interfere with the matter. Besides the issuance of the impugned notice, there will be no conclusive finding. The assessment is open as there is bona fide belief that there is suppression or omission on the part of the assessee and that there is escapement of true assessment. This court is convinced. There are sufficient materials on record to enable the respondent authorities to proceed according to law by issuing the impugned notices. For the foregoing reasons, this court does not find any merit in the writ petition. The rule is discharged. All interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1990 (11) TMI 44 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... dia. In other words, the sales took place beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this country. Therefore, in such a case, the real exporter is the assessee company who, through the Project and Equipment Corporation of India Limited, exported the goods. We are, therefore, of the opinion that if the assessee fulfils the other requirements of the provisions of section 35B, it will be certainly entitled to claim weighted deduction under section 35B in respect of the goods and products manufactured and exported by the assessee on which the assessee claimed to have incurred certain expenditure. In our view, therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the weighted deduction cannot be denied to the assessee simply on the ground that the assessee has not exported the goods directly. For the reasons aforesaid, the question in this reference is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. - I agree.
-
1990 (11) TMI 43 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act ... ... ... ... ..... on 4, ibid, is not attracted to the instant case. Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that the plaintiff executed sale deeds, exhibits P. W.4/2 and P. W.-4/3, in favour of Bhima and Kishan Lal in respect of the suit land and, in both these documents, it was stated that the vendees were given symbolic possession. The plaintiff indirectly admitted in these documents that the possession was with the lessee and this admission debars him from challenging the validity of the lease deed dated August 24, 1960. The first appellate court took these documents into consideration and for good reasons, held that mere recital in the sale deed that symbolic possession was given to the vendees is of no consequence since lessees have not alleged and proved that they were in possession of the land sold through these two documents. The submission is bereft of merit. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Counsel s fee is assessed at Rs. 1,000.
....
|
