|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 364 Records
-
1995 (11) TMI 44
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955 regarding the recovery of tax arrears.
2. Determining the authority responsible for collecting tax arrears under the Act.
3. Application of section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 in the distribution of amounts due to multiple creditors in execution proceedings.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The revision petition involved a dispute regarding the recovery of tax arrears under section 41 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer, as the first respondent, filed an execution application seeking payment of Rs. 1,13,000 from the amount realized after the sale of the deceased judgment-debtor's property. The petitioner argued that the Officer should have approached the Collector, the executing authority under section 41, for collecting the arrears instead of the civil court. The petitioner contended that the order for payment out was erroneous and should be set aside.
2. The Additional Government Pleader representing the first respondent contended that under section 73 of the Civil Procedure Code, in cases with multiple creditors, the executing court is responsible for distributing the amount due to them rateably. It was argued that the first respondent's approach to the civil court for payment out of the amount due from the judgment-debtor was in line with established procedures. The Pleader asserted that the Collector, as the executing court, could use various methods, including approaching the civil court, to collect the tax arrears.
3. The Court considered the submissions and noted that the judgment-debtor was an agricultural income-tax assessee, and a sum of Rs. 1,16,000 was deposited in court from the sale of his property. The Agricultural Income-tax Officer applied for payment of Rs. 1,13,000, the tax arrears, from this amount. The Court interpreted section 41 of the Act, which mandates the Officer to forward a certificate to the District Collector for recovering the amount due. In this case, since the amount was already in court deposit, the Officer approached the executing court for payment. The Court found that this approach did not violate the Act or the Civil Procedure Code, as the tax arrears were akin to land revenue, giving the Government a first charge over the deposited amount. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition, upholding the order for payment out in favor of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer.
-
1995 (11) TMI 43
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer a question of law regarding the validity of a transaction involving the transfer of shares from a Hindu undivided family to its karta. The Tribunal had concluded that the transaction was made to reduce tax liability and applied the principle laid down in McDowell and Co. Ltd. v. CTO [1985] 154 ITR 148. The Court found that the legal inference drawn by the Tribunal was arguable and directed the Tribunal to refer the question for consideration. The income-tax case was allowed with no costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 42
The petitioners approached the High Court challenging a notice for sale of property for wealth-tax dues. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioners have alternative remedies available and should raise objections before the Tax Recovery Officer.
-
1995 (11) TMI 41
Issues: Valuation of jewellery under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh involved several questions regarding the valuation of jewellery under the Wealth-tax Act, 1957. The Revenue sought reference of specific questions for consideration. The first issue was whether uncertainties, hazards, risks of litigation, and cumulative tax liability should be considered to reduce the estimated market value of jewellery. The second issue raised was about the concept of a notional open market and any restrictions on the sale of assets. The third question was related to allowing a deduction from the valuation fixed by the approved valuer due to uncertainties and risks. The fourth issue concerned the exemption under section 5(1)(xii) for certain items of jewellery claimed to be art treasures. The fifth issue was whether the Wealth-tax Officer could make further adjustments to the valuation determined by the Valuation Officer under section 16A. The sixth question was about the cancellation of assessment under section 21(1A) and the treatment of trust fund corpus. The seventh issue involved the scope of section 21(1A) and its applicability to assessments under section 21(4). The eighth and final issue was regarding the confirmation of the value of the fund at 50% of the valuation fixed by the departmental valuer, considering certain issues not considered by the valuer himself.
The High Court directed the reference of questions concerning valuation of jewellery, as well as a debatable question of law raised in question No. 4. Questions 6 and 7 were deemed not arising from the Tribunal's order and were not referred. The judgment partly allowed the wealth-tax case without imposing any costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 40
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed Income-tax Appeals 2 and 3 of 1980. The court held that serving notice on the transferor or transferee before publication in the Official Gazette invalidated the acquisition proceedings under section 269F(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The order of the competent authority acquiring the property was set aside. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 39
Issues Involved:
1. Examination of Goodwill Account by the Income-tax Officer.
2. Justification of the Tribunal's Order Upholding the Commissioner's Decision u/s 263.
Summary:
Issue 1: Examination of Goodwill Account by the Income-tax Officer
The Tribunal held that the Income-tax Officer (ITO) had not examined the goodwill account, making his order erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax issued a notice u/s 263 stating that the ITO failed to tax the goodwill amount of Rs. 10,75,000 credited to the partners' accounts, failed to pass an order u/s 185(1)(a), and failed to add back interest payments of Rs. 94,631 to the partners. The assessee contended that the goodwill account was scrutinized in detail and accepted, and no transfer of capital asset occurred during the assessment year in question. The Commissioner rejected this contention and directed the ITO to examine the transactions and book entries concerning the goodwill amount. The Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's order but noted that the Commissioner did not assess the merits of the goodwill's taxability, only directing the ITO to consider all material facts.
Issue 2: Justification of the Tribunal's Order Upholding the Commissioner's Decision u/s 263
The court found that the ITO had indeed examined the goodwill account, as evidenced by the assessee's detailed submission to the ITO. The Commissioner and the Tribunal failed to consider relevant dates and materials, leading to an erroneous conclusion. The court emphasized that the assessment of each year is independent, and the goodwill account creation in November 1972 and the business transfer in February 1974 were outside the relevant assessment year 1974-75. The court clarified that the Commissioner's power u/s 263 is not for directing inquiries on mere suspicion but requires finding an error prejudicial to the Revenue's interests. The court also noted that no capital gain arises from self-created goodwill, referencing CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty and Sunil Siddharthbhai v. CIT. The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision affirming the Commissioner's order was not well-founded in law.
Conclusion:
Both questions were answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, with no order as to costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 38
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh allowed the income-tax case filed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Karnataka-Central. The Court directed a question regarding the genuineness and quantum of deductions for secret commission to be referred for its opinion. The Tribunal's findings were deemed arguable, and the case was allowed with no costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 37
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Correctness of the Tribunal's finding regarding the absence of evidence for concealment of income.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Justification of the Penalty Imposed under Section 271(1)(c)
The first issue revolves around whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the penalty of Rs. 92,894 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) could not be justified. The facts of the case reveal that the Income-tax Officer rejected the books of account maintained by the assessee, as it was deemed impossible to arrive at a correct result of the business. Consequently, the income was assessed by estimating the gross profit at 15% on estimated sales of Rs. 8,75,000, leading to additions of Rs. 93,000. This was modified by the Tribunal, which reduced the gross profit rate to 12% and estimated sales to Rs. 8,00,000, thus reducing the additions to Rs. 57,644.
During the assessment proceedings, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated. The assessee argued that there was no gross or willful neglect in submitting the return of income. However, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 92,894, relying on the Explanation to section 271(1)(c), which allowed the Assessing Officer to presume concealment if the returned income was less than 80% of the assessed income.
The Tribunal, however, deleted the penalty, stating that the Revenue must show evidence of concealment before imposing a penalty. The court agreed with the Tribunal, noting that the burden on the assessee is akin to that in civil litigation, dependent on the preponderance of probabilities. The court emphasized that the presumption raised in favor of the Revenue can be rebutted if it can be shown that the failure to return the total assessed income did not arise from fraud or gross or willful neglect. The court cited the case of CIT v. S. P. Bhatt [1974] 97 ITR 440, reinforcing that the legal fiction can be displaced if the assessee proves the absence of fraud or gross or willful neglect.
The court concluded that the facts of the present case, involving a best judgment assessment based on estimated figures, did not indicate any deliberate attempt by the assessee to maintain false books. Thus, the failure to return the total assessed income was not due to fraud or gross or willful neglect. The Tribunal's decision to delete the penalty was upheld, and question No. 1 was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Issue 2: Correctness of the Tribunal's Finding Regarding the Absence of Evidence for Concealment of Income
The second issue concerns whether the Tribunal was correct in law in finding that, despite the rejection of the assessee's book results, there was no evidence to conclude a positive finding of concealment, thus invalidating the penalty under section 271(1)(c).
The court noted that the presumption under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) is rebuttable and operates in favor of the Revenue unless rebutted by the assessee. Once rebutted, the Revenue must provide independent evidence of concealment. In this case, the Tribunal found that the assessee had successfully rebutted the presumption, and there was no evidence of deliberate concealment of income. The court agreed, emphasizing that the assessment was based on estimated figures and there was no material indicating deliberate falsification by the assessee.
The court reiterated the principle from S. P. Bhatt [1974] 97 ITR 440, stating that in cases of estimated assessments, it is difficult to attribute failure to return the assessed income to fraud or gross or willful neglect. The Tribunal's finding was thus upheld, and question No. 2 was answered in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue.
Conclusion
The court concluded that the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) was not justified, as the assessee successfully rebutted the presumption of concealment. The Tribunal's findings were upheld, and both questions were answered in favor of the assessee. There was no order as to costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 36
Issues:
1. Allowance of expenditure for boarding, lodging, and education of orphans as a business expenditure.
2. Entitlement to investment allowance on new plant and machinery for coal extraction.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The court deliberated on whether the expenditure incurred for boarding, lodging, and education of orphans by the assessee-company could be considered a business expenditure. The Tribunal found a connection between the expenditure and the company's business activity, as the orphans were trained and eventually absorbed into the company's service. However, the court emphasized that philanthropic measures not related to the company's business activity cannot be treated as business expenditure unless prompted by business expediency. The court noted a lack of clarity on whether the company's actions were motivated by business reasons. The Tribunal's reasoning on considering the expenditure as a means to acquire prospective coal miners was questioned, leading to the conclusion that a debatable question of law exists, warranting further consideration.
Issue 2:
Regarding the entitlement to investment allowance on new plant and machinery for coal extraction, the court examined the condition that the machinery should be installed for the business of manufacturing or production. The Revenue argued that coal extraction does not constitute production. The court referred to a previous decision and legislative history to interpret the term "production." It was observed that while every manufacture is a form of production, not all production amounts to manufacture. The court concluded that coal extraction qualifies as a production activity based on common usage and statutory language. The court rejected the Revenue's argument and affirmed that the benefit of the investment allowance is available to the assessee. Given the clear legal position and absence of doubt, the court declined to refer this issue for further consideration, ensuring certainty for the assessee.
In summary, the court allowed the reference on the first question regarding the expenditure for orphans as a business expense due to the presence of a debatable legal issue. However, the court declined to refer the second question concerning investment allowance, as the legal position was clear, and there was no ambiguity benefiting the assessee, a public sector undertaking.
-
1995 (11) TMI 35
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 132A(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Requirement of satisfaction for exercising power under section 132A(1)(b).
3. Application of Explanation 2 in legislative references.
4. Validity of the order of requisition under section 132A(1)(b).
5. Examination of the order and reasons for requisition.
Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of ALLAHABAD addressed the interpretation of section 132A(1)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner argued that for the power under this section to be exercised, both conditions specified in clause (b) must be satisfied. These conditions include the relevance of documents to a pending proceeding and the belief that the person summoned would not produce the required documents. The petitioner contended that since no pending proceeding existed for the assessment year 1993-94, the power under section 132A(1)(b) could not be invoked.
Furthermore, the petitioner emphasized the necessity of the requisitioning authority's satisfaction that the documents would not be produced if summoned. The court examined the legislative references and debated whether Explanation 2, which defines "proceeding," was applicable in this context. The respondent argued that section 132A(1)(b) could be exercised even before the commencement of a proceeding.
The court referred to the decision in ITO v. Madnani Engineering Works Ltd. [1979] 118 ITR 1 (SC) and reiterated that both conditions must be met for the initiation of proceedings under section 132A. The court scrutinized the order and reasons for requisition and found that there was no recorded satisfaction or belief that the documents would not be produced if summoned. Consequently, the court concluded that the order of requisition was issued mechanically without proper application of mind, rendering it invalid.
As a result, the court quashed the order of requisition for the assessment year 1993-94 and directed the return of documents to the trade tax authorities. The respondents were granted liberty to take appropriate legal steps concerning the assessment year. The writ petition was allowed, with no costs imposed.
-
1995 (11) TMI 34
Issues Involved:
1. Capital Gains on Sale of Shade Trees
2. Determination of Cost of Acquisition for Shade Trees
3. Entitlement to Section 54E Benefits
Detailed Analysis:
1. Capital Gains on Sale of Shade Trees:
The court examined whether the sale of shade trees constituted capital gains taxable under section 45 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held that shade trees in a coffee estate are essential for the protection of coffee bushes and thus form part of the capital assets of the estate. Consequently, the sale of such trees gives rise to capital gains. The court referred to several precedents, including *State of Kerala v. Karimtharuvi Tea Estates Ltd.* and *Consolidated Coffee Estates (1943) Ltd. v. Commr. of Agrl. I. T.*, which supported the view that shade trees are capital assets and their sale results in capital receipts.
2. Determination of Cost of Acquisition for Shade Trees:
The court addressed the issue of determining the cost of acquisition for the shade trees. The assessee argued that since no specific cost was attributed to the shade trees in the purchase of the coffee estate, it should be presumed that no cost was incurred. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the shade trees, being tangible assets, must have a conceivable cost of acquisition. The Tribunal had empirically determined the cost of acquisition by considering the price of the coffee estate and allocating a portion of it to the shade trees. The court upheld this method, noting that the cost of acquisition could be reasonably envisaged and determined.
3. Entitlement to Section 54E Benefits:
The court also considered whether the assessee was entitled to the benefits of section 54E of the Income-tax Act for investments made in rural development bonds out of the income of the preceding year. The Tribunal had denied this benefit, and the court upheld this decision, noting that the investment in question was made during the assessment year 1981-82, while the capital gains in question arose in the assessment year 1982-83. Therefore, the investment could not be counted against the receipts for the subsequent year.
Conclusion:
The court answered the questions referred to it in the affirmative and against the assessee. The sale of shade trees gave rise to capital gains taxable under section 45, the cost of acquisition for the shade trees could be reasonably determined, and the assessee was not entitled to the benefits of section 54E for investments made in the preceding year. The references were disposed of accordingly, with no orders as to costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 33
The High Court of Bombay ruled that the assessee is liable to be taxed on the amount credited to the 'Interest Suspense Account'. The decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of Travancore v. CIT applies, not the decision of the Bombay High Court in CIT v. Citibank N. A. The question was answered in the negative in favor of the Revenue, with the assessee ordered to pay costs of Rs. 1,000.
-
1995 (11) TMI 32
Issues:
1. Determination of fair market value for property acquisition under section 269C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Sufficiency of material before competent authority to initiate acquisition proceedings.
3. Compliance with mandatory provisions of section 269D of the Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns Income-tax Appeals arising from the acquisition of property by five individuals at an apparent consideration of Rs. 93,000, with the Valuation Officer determining the fair market value at Rs. 1,62,000 based on the market rate of Rs. 120 per square yard. The competent authority initiated acquisition proceedings under section 269C of the Act as the fair market value exceeded the apparent consideration by more than 15%. The Tribunal, however, found the authority lacked sufficient material to initiate proceedings, as the Valuation Officer's report did not properly determine the fair market value, leading to the order of acquisition being set aside.
2. The Tribunal concluded that the competent authority's decision to initiate acquisition was not supported by substantial evidence, as the Valuation Officer's report was vague and lacked details on how the market rate was determined. The authority's rush to make a decision, without clear and cogent material, indicated a lack of proper basis for initiating the acquisition proceedings under section 269C(1) of the Act. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision to set aside the acquisition order was upheld by the High Court.
3. While the issue of compliance with the mandatory provisions of section 269D of the Act was raised by the transferees before the Tribunal, the High Court did not delve into this aspect due to the primary finding regarding the insufficiency of material for initiating the acquisition proceedings. The Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue under section 269H of the Act, upholding the Tribunal's decision and imposing costs on the appellants.
-
1995 (11) TMI 31
Issues:
Interpretation of section 37(2B) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the deductibility of expenditure incurred for putting up a stall at an exhibition in connection with a political celebration.
Analysis:
The case involved a petition under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1987-88, where the assessee sought to refer a question regarding the deductibility of expenditure incurred for setting up a stall at an exhibition related to a political celebration. The assessee claimed the expenditure as a business expense to promote its image and goodwill. However, the Assessing Officer disallowed the expenditure under section 37(2B) of the Act, considering it as an indirect contribution to a political party. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the disallowance, treating the expenditure as advertisement expenditure. The Tribunal's decision lacked a detailed discussion of the law and evidence on record, leading to a challenge on the interpretation of section 37(2B) and the factual applicability of the provision.
The court observed that section 37(2B) of the Act prohibits deductions for expenses on advertisement in publications by political parties. The court noted that the Tribunal's decision lacked a proper analysis of the law and evidence, and the finding that the expenditure was advertisement expenditure was not adequately supported. The court held that the interpretation of section 37(2B) and its application to the facts of the case raised a question of law. Therefore, the court directed the Tribunal to refer the question for the court's opinion, indicating that the question proposed was indeed a question of law. As a result, the court allowed the petition without imposing any costs on the parties involved.
-
1995 (11) TMI 30
Issues Involved:
1. Competence of Legislature to validate assessment processes deemed invalid by the court.
2. Legitimacy of reviving time-barred proceedings through legislative amendments.
3. Double taxation concerns regarding "coffee back-pool payments" received post-partition of a Hindu undivided family (HUF).
4. Necessity of undertaking the assessment process under specific statutory provisions before raising a tax demand against a fictional HUF.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Competence of Legislature to Validate Assessment Processes Deemed Invalid by the Court:
The court examined whether the Legislature could validate assessment processes previously found invalid by judicial pronouncements. It was noted that the Legislature, through successive amendments, aimed to rectify deficiencies in the law to ensure that payments received for crops harvested and disposed of by a HUF before its partition could be taxed in the hands of the HUF, regardless of whether these payments were received before or after the partition. The court upheld the Legislature's competence to amend the law retrospectively to achieve this objective, emphasizing that such amendments were intended to clarify the machinery provisions for effective assessment rather than creating a new charge or altering tax rates.
2. Legitimacy of Reviving Time-Barred Proceedings Through Legislative Amendments:
The court addressed the issue of whether the Legislature could extend the period of limitation for assessment or reassessment through amendments, thus reviving proceedings that had become time-barred. It was concluded that periods of limitation under fiscal statutes are part of the assessment machinery and do not create an exemption for the taxpayer. The Legislature is competent to lift the time fetter on assessing authorities and extend the period of limitation, provided the legislative intent is clear. The court found that the amendments in question explicitly extended the period for assessment, thus validating the previously time-barred proceedings.
3. Double Taxation Concerns Regarding "Coffee Back-Pool Payments":
The court rejected the contention that taxing "coffee back-pool payments" in the hands of a fictional HUF would result in double taxation. It clarified that although these payments were initially assessed in the hands of individual members, the Joint Commissioner had revised these orders to tax the payments in the hands of the HUF. The court emphasized that it is within the authority of the assessing officers to ensure that income is taxed in the correct hands. If income is wrongly assessed in the hands of an individual, the individual has recourse to appeal, revision, or rectification under the Act.
4. Necessity of Undertaking the Assessment Process Under Specific Statutory Provisions:
The court examined whether the assessment process under section 30(5) read with section 18(2) of the principal Act was necessary before raising a tax demand against a fictional HUF. It noted that the assessment orders had already been passed following the prescribed procedure but were set aside due to deficiencies identified in a previous court decision. The Legislature subsequently amended the relevant provisions to address these deficiencies and validated all prior proceedings, acts, or things done for the purpose of or in relation to the levy, assessment, or collection of tax. The court held that the amendments effectively validated the previous assessments and tax demands, negating the need for de novo assessment proceedings.
Conclusion:
The writ petitions were dismissed, with the court affirming the Legislature's competence to retrospectively amend the law to validate previously invalidated assessments, extend limitation periods, and ensure correct taxation of income. The court also clarified that the amendments did not result in double taxation and validated the prior assessment orders and tax demands without requiring new assessment proceedings.
-
1995 (11) TMI 29
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the property and validity of the gift deeds.
2. Claim by the Income-tax Department on the sale proceeds.
3. Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act.
4. Entitlement to notice under section 156 of the Income-tax Act.
5. Validity of the attachment of sale proceeds by the Income-tax Department.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Ownership of the property and validity of the gift deeds:
The objector, Smt. Usha Gupta, claimed to be the absolute owner of the property by virtue of a gift deed dated March 16, 1970, from her mother-in-law, Smt. Shanti Devi. However, it was established that the property originally belonged to Mr. J. C. Gupta, who gifted it to his wife, Smt. Shanti Devi, in 1949. Smt. Shanti Devi later gifted the property to Smt. Usha Gupta. Despite these transactions, evidence including letters from Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Usha Gupta indicated that the property was held benami for Mr. J. C. Gupta, who remained the real owner. The court concluded that Smt. Shanti Devi and Smt. Usha Gupta were merely benamidars and did not hold actual ownership.
2. Claim by the Income-tax Department on the sale proceeds:
The Income-tax Department claimed the sale proceeds of Rs. 6,45,000 for the recovery of tax liabilities of Mr. J. C. Gupta. The objector argued that the sale proceeds belonged to her and were wrongfully attached. However, the court found that the property, and consequently the sale proceeds, were indeed owned by Mr. J. C. Gupta, making the attachment by the Income-tax Department valid for recovering his tax dues.
3. Applicability of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act:
The court noted that benami transactions do not affect the rights of third parties. Citing the case of Gopal Bariha v. Satyanarayan Das, it was held that the Income-tax Department, as a third party, could claim recovery from the property held benami. The court also referenced R. Rajagopal Reddy v. Padmini Chandrasekharan, noting that the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act does not apply retrospectively to affect vested rights.
4. Entitlement to notice under section 156 of the Income-tax Act:
The objector contended that she was not issued a notice of demand under section 156 of the Income-tax Act. The court clarified that the notice of demand is relevant only between the assessee (Mr. J. C. Gupta) and the Income-tax Department. Since Mr. J. C. Gupta did not raise any objection regarding the notice, the court found that the objector, who is not the assessee, was not entitled to such notice.
5. Validity of the attachment of sale proceeds by the Income-tax Department:
The court referred to Iqbal Begum v. TRO, which held that properties held benami could be attached for the recovery of dues from the real owner. Applying this principle, the court ruled that the sale proceeds held by the Registry were liable to be attached for the tax liabilities of Mr. J. C. Gupta. The court dismissed the objector's argument that a gift deed, once executed and delivered, could not be revoked, stating that benami transactions cannot affect third-party rights.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed E. A. No. 142 of 1989, ruling that the Income-tax Department was entitled to enforce recovery of its dues from the sale proceeds deposited in the name of the objector, Smt. Usha Gupta. The amount of Rs. 6,45,000 was ordered to be paid to the Tax Recovery Officer, Mayur Bhawan, New Delhi.
-
1995 (11) TMI 28
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of certain sums as 'Reserves' and their inclusion in the net wealth of the assessee.
2. Denial of deduction of certain sums as 'debt owed' by the firm while computing assessable wealth.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Classification of Sums as 'Reserves'
The first question addressed was whether the Tribunal erred in labeling a sum of Rs. 73,60,451 (correct amount being Rs. 73,30,736) standing to the accounts of 'Minimum Wages Amanat account', 'Bonus Amanat account', and 'Bidi and Cigar Amanat account' as 'Reserves' of the firm, Kale Khan Mohd. Hanif, and consequently including in the net wealth of the assessee his proportionate entitlement in the said alleged reserves.
The Tribunal upheld the assessing authority's decision to include these amounts in the net wealth of the assessee. The Tribunal acknowledged the legal position that liabilities under the Bidi and Cigar Workers Act and the Payment of Bonus Act qualify for deductions. However, it found that the assessee failed to provide evidence to satisfy the Wealth-tax Officer that these liabilities were still in existence on the relevant valuation date. The amounts in question were not paid to the workers and were instead used by the firm in its business. The Tribunal concluded that these amounts were essentially 'ghost debts' created by the assessee and utilized for business purposes. Thus, the Tribunal did not err in treating these sums as 'Reserves' and including them in the net wealth of the assessee.
Issue 2: Denial of Deduction as 'Debt Owed'
The second question was whether the Tribunal erred in not allowing the proportionate sums standing to the credit of the 'Minimum Wages Amanat account', 'Bonus Amanat account', and 'Bidi and Cigar Amanat account' as 'debt owed' by the firm while computing the assessable wealth of the assessee-partner.
The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to produce material evidence to show that these amounts were genuinely owed to any workers. Despite the amounts being recorded in the books of account, no actual payments were made, nor were any steps taken to discharge these liabilities. The funds remained invested in the firm's business and were not separately earmarked. The Tribunal emphasized that simply recording an amount in the books of account does not conclusively establish a debt owed. The authorities under the Wealth-tax Act are entitled to make a factual inquiry to determine the existence of such liabilities. The Tribunal upheld the finding that these were 'ghost debts' and denied the benefit of deduction under section 2(m)(iii) of the Wealth-tax Act.
In conclusion, the Tribunal's findings were based on the lack of evidence provided by the assessee to substantiate the existence of the liabilities. The authorities under the Wealth-tax Act were justified in their factual inquiry and subsequent decision to deny the deductions. Both questions were answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's decision.
-
1995 (11) TMI 27
Issues involved: Delay in filing review application, claim for interest on refund amount, jurisdiction to file review application after withdrawing special leave petition.
Delay in filing review application: The delay in filing the review application was condoned, and the civil miscellaneous was allowed.
Claim for interest on refund amount: The petitioner claimed interest on the refund amount of Rs. 84,500. The court found that the petitioner was deprived of the use of the money from January 6, 1988, when the amount became refundable. It was determined that respondents Nos. 1 to 3 should compensate the petitioner for the deprivation of the use of the money, as the demand draft was not encashed by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Respondents Nos. 1 to 3 were directed to pay interest at 12 per cent from January 6, 1988, till the actual date of refund of the amount.
Jurisdiction to file review application after withdrawing special leave petition: The respondents contended that the petitioner could not approach the court for review after filing a special leave petition before the Supreme Court. However, the court rejected this contention, noting that the petitioner had withdrawn the special leave petition himself. The court held that there was no prohibition on the petitioner filing a review application in the court, as advised by counsel. The review application was allowed after hearing counsel for all parties involved.
Conclusion: The court directed respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to pay interest on the refund amount, and both civil miscellaneous cases were disposed of accordingly.
-
1995 (11) TMI 26
The High Court of Bombay ruled that income derived by an assessee firm from brokerage and commission on foreign transactions between scheduled banks and Reserve Bank of India is taxable as 'professional income'. The decision was based on a previous court ruling and was in favor of the Revenue.
-
1995 (11) TMI 25
The High Court of Bombay ruled in favor of the assessee on both questions referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The first question regarding the computation of disallowable expenditure was answered in favor of the assessee based on a previous court decision. The second question about the claim of share issue expenses as a deduction under section 37(1) was allowed by the court, citing that the expenditure was of a revenue nature and had been incurred in connection with the same issue in a previous assessment year. The court found no issue with the Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction claimed by the assessee.
....
|
9911796707
