|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 355 Records
-
1995 (11) TMI 35 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessing Officer ... ... ... ... ..... produced if the summons are issued or might be issued, not to speak of any material or reasons for arriving at such belief. This shows that the said order was issued mechanically and without any proper application of mind, inasmuch as there was no recording of satisfaction or of belief that the assessee will not or would not produce the documents. In that view of the matter, the order of requisition cannot be sustained only on that ground. We, therefore, refrain from dealing with the other points raised. In the result, the order of requisition dated January 23, 1995, in respect of the assessment year 1993-94 is quashed. The respondents are directed to return the documents to the trade tax authorities from whom the same were requisitioned. The respondents, however, shall be at liberty to take such steps in respect of the said assessment year 1993-94 in accordance with law as they may be advised. The writ petition is thus allowed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 34 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Computation Of Capital, Cost Of Acquisition Of Capital Asset, Cost Of Improvement, Investment In Specified Securities
-
1995 (11) TMI 33 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Interest On Sticky Loans ... ... ... ... ..... f Travancore v. CIT 1986 158 ITR 102. We have pointed out to learned counsel that in the decision of this court the assessee had not credited any amount of interest to its account on loans advanced to certain parties and had maintained the account of those parties on the cash system and it was on that basis only that the said decision was rendered. Learned counsel for the assessee wanted to be heard and accordingly he was heard. We, however, do not find any merit in any of the submissions he has made. We are of the firm opinion that the question on the face of it is squarely covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of Travancore v. CIT 1986 158 ITR 102 and the decision of this court in CIT v. Citibank N. A. 1994 208 ITR 930 has no application whatsoever to the facts of the present case. In view of the above, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The assessee to pay cost of Rs. 1,000 to the Revenue.
-
1995 (11) TMI 32 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Fair Market Value, Immovable Property, Movable Property, Valuation Officer ... ... ... ... ..... is clear from the communication dated June 12, 1973, addressed to the Valuation Officer and the officer who was the competent authority went to Rohtak where the Valuation Officer gave the report. The matter was discussed there and then and after recording its reasons on the same day, notice under section 269D of the Act was also issued on that date. In our opinion, all this was done in haste and there was no relevant or cogent material before the competent authority on which it could have reason to believe that proceedings for acquisition ought to be initiated. We have, therefore, no hesitation in upholding the finding of the Tribunal in this regard. Having upheld the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal it is not necessary for us to deal with the other contention of the transferees, namely, that the mandatory provisions of section 269D of the Act had been violated. In the result, both the appeals are dismissed with costs which are assessed at Rs. 1,000 in each of the appeals.
-
1995 (11) TMI 31 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Advertisement Expenditure, Business Expenditure, Expenditure On Advertisement, Question Of Law, Tribunal's Order
-
1995 (11) TMI 30 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Assessment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... nings in the case of Uddappa Gowda s case and has by clear intendment and declaration validated the assessments made and the tax demands created. In this view of the matter, it was not at all necessary on the part of the respondents to de novo initiate the assessment proceedings by issuing assessment notices in terms of section 30(5)/18(2) of the principal Act. Anyhow, it is clarified that if the petitioners have any grievance against the computation of income it will be open to them to avail of the statutory remedies provided under the Act in accordance with law. In case such remedies are found to have been barred by limitation, it is desirable that the concerned authorities should sympathetically consider the question of condoning the delays keeping in view the filing of the writ petitions before this court against the impugned assessment orders and/or demand notices. In the result, these writ petitions fail which are accordingly dismissed but without any order as to costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 29 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Net Wealth, Sale Proceeds ... ... ... ... ..... deserve any consideration and for this reason the decision reported in T. V. Kalyanasundaram Pillai v. Karuppa Mooppanar, AIR 1927 PC 42, would be of no assistance to the objector, though the principle enunciated cannot be questioned and I am in respectful agreement with the same. For the reasons abovestated this application under Order 21, rule 58 of the Civil Procedure Code, being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and the amount of Rs. 6,45,000 paid over to the Tax Recovery Officer, Mayur Bhawan, New Delhi, vide their Letter No. TRO XX, New Delhi, dated June 17, 1988, addressed to the Registrar, Delhi High Court, New Delhi. It, therefore, follows from the above, that the Income-tax Department would be entitled to enforce recovery of its dues payable by Mr. J. C. Gupta against the amount lying with the Registry, Delhi High Court, New Delhi, lying deposited in the name of the objector/judgment-debtor No. 1, Smt. Usha Gupta. In the result, E. A. No. 142 of 1989 fails.
-
1995 (11) TMI 28 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Debt Owed, Value Of Interest Of Partner In Firm ... ... ... ... ..... to the assessee is not there. But suffice it to say that the Tribunal had adverted to this question in its order dated May 30, 1986, while concluding. It has observed It is high time that the Revenue should consider taking remedial measures in income-tax assessments by invoking the provisions of section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, simply because the Department has not woken up to its responsibility that does not mean that the assessee is entitled to escape the net of liability under the Wealth-tax Act. Hence, we do not find any reason to take a different view from the view taken by the assessing authority as also by the Tribunal which is well justified and both the aforesaid questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Likewise, both the references (M. C. C. No. 142 of 1987 and M. C. C. No. 268 of 1987) are also disposed of accordingly, and the questions referred therein are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1995 (11) TMI 27 - DELHI HIGH COURT
High Court, Interest Payable, Search And Seizure, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... d mean that the draft has not been encashed by the Commissioner of Income-tax. It is possible that it was lost in transit when sent by the Income-tax Department to respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Counsel for the Commissioner of Income-tax, respondent No. 4, says that they had returned the demand draft within 10 days of its receipt by registered post. Counsel for respondents Nos. 1 to 3, however, denies that the demand draft was returned by the 4th respondent. But inasmuch as the demand draft was returned by the 4th respondent to respondents Nos. 1 to 3 by registered post, it must be presumed that the demand draft was with respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Therefore, it is clear that the use of the money was denied to the petitioner by respondents Nos. 1 to 3 and not by respondent No. 4. We accordingly direct respondents Nos. 1 to 3 to pay interest at 12 per cent. from January 6, 1988, till the actual date of refund of the amount of Rs. 84,500. Both the civil miscellaneous stand disposed of.
-
1995 (11) TMI 26 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Expenditure Incurred ... ... ... ... ..... derived by the assessee firm from brokerage and commission on foreign transactions between scheduled banks and Exchange Control of Reserve Bank of India was taxable as professional income ? It is stated before us that this case is covered by the ratio of the decision of this court in CIT v. Lallubhai Nagardas and Sons 1993 204 ITR 93. Following the same, it is answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 25 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Expenditure Incurred ... ... ... ... ..... lution of foreign shareholding was a pre-requisite for the carrying on of the company s business in India. Part of the expenditure in doing so was incurred in the preceding assessment year which was allowed by the Tribunal. The Revenue did not come in reference against the said order. The amount claimed in this year is a part of the expenditure incurred in connection with the very same issue which was made in the preceding assessment year. Learned counsel submits that the expenditure was allowed in the preceding assessment year, following the ratio of the decision of this court in CIT v. Glaxo Laboratories (India) Ltd. 1990 181 ITR 59. In view of the above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee in respect of expenditure of Rs. 29,021 in connection with the very same issue in this year also. In view of the above, question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 24 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Asset ... ... ... ... ..... endment would apply to the assessment to be made for that year. However, the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Laxman Singh 1986 159 ITR 983 took a different view by holding that whatever substantive rights had accrued to the assessee prior to April 1, 1973, could not be taken away. Though the controversy is not directly before us the conclusion to which we have reached above is that in our opinion there is a clear distinction between the application of the law on the basis of which ex hypothesi charge is determined on the occurrence of the taxable event and the assessment of the charge in accordance with the provisions of the law as in force on the commencement of the assessment year. If that distinction is to be borne, we are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Rajasthan High Court. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 23 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Penalty Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... question of criminal prosecution against the assessee. Here, I find that the proceeding under section 271(1)(c) has been dropped by the assessing authority by order dated June 30, 1980, as contained in annexure 2 to this application. Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, however, in view of the legal proposition laid down in the aforementioned referred cases very fairly conceded that the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner, after dropping of the proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, was not maintainable. Learned standing counsel also stated that there is a recent circular of the Department endorsing the same view and, in that view of the matter also, the prosecution launched against the petitioner is not maintainable. Having heard counsel for the parties and in view of the legal proposition noticed above, I allow this application and quash the order impugned and the petitioner is hereby discharged from the criminal liability.
-
1995 (11) TMI 22 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking In Backward Area, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ll s case 1996 218 ITR 71, we are of the opinion that the learned Tribunal was not justified in confirming the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) direction that the amount of 20 per cent. has to be calculated with reference to the profit and loss account of the assessee and deductions on account of depreciation, initial or additional depreciation, development rebate, investment allowance, adjustment on account of unabsorbed depreciation, additional depreciation, investment allowance, development rebate, etc., are not to be adjusted at all and the learned Tribunal was not right in agreeing with the Income-tax Officer in allowing deduction under section 80HH with reference to profit as per profit and loss account of the assessee. The income eligible for deduction under section 80HH will be the net income as computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not the gross income. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1995 (11) TMI 21 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... those lands do not belong to them and the benefit under section 5(1)(iva) of the Act can be given to the firm and not to an individual partner. For the same reasons given in Ganga Devi s case 1987 166 ITR 325 (Raj), the present reference is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and it is held that the assessee is not entitled for the grant of exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act in respect of the factory land or the building owned by the partnership firm styled as Hindustan Radiators, which, in fact, collectively belongs to the partners. Consequently, the reference is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, and it is held that the assessee is not entitled to grant of exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act in respect of factory land and building owned by the partnership firm styled as Hindustan Radiators, which in fact collectively belongs to the partners.
-
1995 (11) TMI 20 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking In Backward Area, Investment Allowance, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... of this court answered the question as follows If we read section 80HH with section 80AB of the Act then it is very much clear that for the purpose of determination of the relief under section 80HH of the Act, the gross total income of the assessee has to be worked out after deducting unabsorbed losses and unabsorbed depreciation and the income eligible for deduction under section 80HH will be the net income as computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act and not the gross income. For the reasons given in our judgment in Vishnu Oil Mills case 1996 218 ITR 71, we are of the opinion that while calculating the amount of deduction under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act the depreciation and investment allowance are required to be deducted-and it is only the net income ascertained under the Act that shall be deemed to be the amount entitled for relief under section 80HH of the Act. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1995 (11) TMI 19 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Income, Cash Compensatory Support, Income From Business, Law Applicable To Assessment
-
1995 (11) TMI 18 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Income, Cash Compensatory Support, Commercial Profit, Deduction From Profits And Gains, Investment Allowance, New Industrial Undertaking In Backward Area, Profits And Gains Of Business, Revenue Receipt
-
1995 (11) TMI 17 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Additions To Income, Income Returned, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... es the exact amount cannot be paid to the petitioner. But as an interim measure a sum of Rs. 2,000 has been paid, the balance would be paid, if due, after completion of the assessment. To my mind, the respondent having complied with the provision of law by taking appropriate action and also conducting the search and survey at the appropriate time, there survives nothing in this petition except that if after completion of assessment, any amount as reward is found due to the petitioner the same be paid immediately. In the written submissions the petitioner himself has admitted that the Supreme Court had referred his case to the Legal Aid Cell of the Supreme Court and a senior advocate was provided to him to prosecute his matter. The Legal Aid Cell has forwarded his complaint to the CBI. The matter is now pending with the CBI. In view of this admission of the petitioner, no further order is required to be passed. In view of my above observation, the petition stands disposed of.
-
1995 (11) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Business Expenditure, Development Allowance, Electrical Machinery, Law Applicable To Assessment, Weighted Deduction
....
|
