|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 370 Records
-
1991 (4) TMI 50 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Surtax, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... the said claim. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, states that according to the instructions received by him, an order was passed after the filing of this writ petition, rejecting the said application, but that order has not so far been communicated to the assessee. It shall be open to the petitioner to approach the authorities concerned for communication of a copy of the order disposing of the application dated September 19, 1990, filed by the petitioner. If any such application is made, the authorities concerned shall supply a copy of the said order to the petitioner within two weeks of the filing of the application. If, however, the said application dated September 19, 1990, has not so far been disposed of, the same may be disposed of according to law within a period of one month of the production of a certified copy of this order before the respondents. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 49 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... claim cannot be considered under section 37(1) cannot certainly be supported. Accordingly, we answer the reframed first question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. However, it will be open to the Tribunal while giving effect to the judgment of this court to consider whether the expenditure herein is really of the nature falling under the clauses or sub-sections of section 35. It would be on the basis of that finding only it could be held that that claim cannot be considered under section 37. Needless to mention if the assessee satisfies all the conditions provided in section 35(1)(i), the claim might have to be allowed under that clause of the section itself. As regards the second question of law, counsel are agreed that in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1985 156 ITR 585, the question is to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. The question is so answered. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 48 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... lend the separate property with the joint family property should be unambiguous and clear. The Tribunal has taken the view that, by his consistent course of conduct over a period of more than 12 years, the assessee had unambiguously exhibited and indicated his intention of throwing his separate property into the common hotchpot. The action was voluntary and no material was brought to the notice of the Tribunal militating against his declaration and conduct aforesaid. In the circumstances, the Tribunal recorded the finding that there was a blending. We see no reason to disturb the finding. No reasons are brought to our notice indicating why and how the said finding is vitiated. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In view of our answer to the above question, we do not think it necessary to answer the question referred at the instance of the assessee. The reference is disposed of accordingly. No costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 47 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... s husband continues to reside there with the wife, it cannot be said that the wife does not retain possession and enjoyment of the residential house to the exclusion of the donor. The last question is the third question in R. A. No. 1246/(Bom) of 1975-76. This represents the value of furniture, etc., lying in Readymoney House at Napean Sea Road and the Poona property. Since we have already stated that the Poona property and Readymoney House are not includible in the principal value of the estate of the deceased, it must, of necessity, follow that the value of any furniture lying therein cannot be liable to estate duty. Accordingly, we answer the first question in R. A. No. 1246/(Bom) of 1975-76, the only question in R. A. No. 1247/(Bom) of 1975-76 and all the three questions in R. A. No. 1092/(Bom) of 1975-76 in favour of the assessee and we answer questions Nos. 2 and 3 in R. A. No. 1246/(Bom) of 1975-76 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 46 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... and masonry work. The details of the break-up were not given. The Income-tax Officer could have, no doubt, found the break-up of the cost with a little probe. But it could not be denied that it was primarily for the assessee to give the break-up of the cost. It is in this background that the Supreme Court observed that whether there was nondisclosure of primary facts as to the cost of the assets was basically a question of fact and the Tribunal had found that the assessee had not disclosed primary facts. Likewise our court s judgment in Technocraft Industries v. J. C. Shan, Second ITO 1990 186 ITR 514 is also not applicable to the facts of the case. Having regard to the discussion above, we are in agreement with the Tribunal that there was no failure on, the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 45 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... 26 ITR 430 (Kar). In that case, certain refreshments were supplied to the members at the general meeting. There the court held that the expenses were incurred as of necessity and constituted part of the expenses incurred for the holding of the business meetings. Such an expenditure, though incurred for the purpose of serving food, refreshments, drinks including liquor at the business meetings of the members of the managing committee or of ordinary members, would be in the nature of administrative or business expenditure and would have no taint of expenditure in the nature of entertainment, and allowed the same as business expenditure as it was for the purpose of business. In that view of the matter, we answer the question in this reference by saying that the amount in question could not be added as income of the assessee. In other words, the Tribunal was justified in upholding the deletion of the addition made. There will be no order as to costs. SHYAMAL KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1991 (4) TMI 44 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ted its own surplus funds in acquiring the land. The assessee did not carry out any development such as plotting of the land, nor did it make any improvement on the land to make it readily marketable. The areas of plot sold were of different dimensions during the different years and in such small quantities, as no normal trader in land would have done. Applying these tests and taking the cumulative effect of the answer thereto, and examining the course of conduct of the assessee from 1941-42 to 1965, we have no manner of doubt that these lands were not bought by the assessee with any intention to trade in land but merely as investments of surplus investible funds. We are of the view that the assessee s contention in this regard must be upheld. Consequently, we answer the questions referred to us in the following manner Question No. 1 In the negative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 In the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 43 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Dividend From New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... it of deduction under section 80J. It is thereupon that the present reference was obtained by the assessee. We are unable to see any error in the order of the Tribunal. Unless it is first ascertained that the company, viz., J. K.Synthetics Ltd., is entitled to the benefit of deduction under section 80J, the petitioner s claim for deduction under section 80K of the Income-tax Act could not have been allowed and this is all that the Tribunal says. Now, so far as the question referred is concerned, we are unable to see how it can be said to arise from the order of the Tribunal. Be that as it may, it is, unnecessary for us to dilate on this aspect inasmuch as the order of the Tribunal is perfectly a justified one it shall be acted upon by the Incometax Officer. In the circumstances, we decline to answer the question referred but hold that the direction made by the Tribunal was a perfectly legal and justified direction. The reference is answered accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Firm, HUF, Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... provisions of the Finance Act, 1963-he was not obliged to repeat this mistake when lie made the order giving effect to the order of the Appellate Tribunal. In our view, the order passed by the Income-tax Officer on January 4, 1974, is perfectly in accordance with law and does not amount to a rectification order at all. It is nothing more than an order giving effect to the order of the Tribunal in appeal. Mr. Mehta relied on a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in CIT v. Himalaya Drug Co. 1982 135 ITR 368 and the judgment of the Supreme Court in M. Chockalingam and Al. Meyyappan v. CIT 1963 48 ITR 34 (SC). We have been taken through these authorities and, in our opinion, these authorities have no bearing on the issue canvassed before us as both the cases were of actual rectification orders. In the result, we have no hesitation in answering the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. The question is answered accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 41 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business, Lease, Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... icularly in a case where the asset was used for some years as a business asset (as in the present case), the question would be whether the assessee can be said to have abandoned his intention to use the said asset as a business asset. It is essentially a question of fact. The inference is to be drawn from the relevant material placed before the authorities so far as this reference is concerned, we cannot interfere with the finding recorded by the Tribunal unless it is shown to us that the finding of the Tribunal is vitiated on any of the recognised grounds, viz., non-consideration of the relevant material, consideration of inadmissible material or the finding being perverse. We cannot say that the finding of the Tribunal in this case suffers from any of the above defects. We, therefore, see no reason to disturb the Tribunals finding. Accordingly, we answer the questions referred in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 40 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... e Tribunal on behalf of the Revenue that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should have himself decided the appeal on merits rather than setting aside the order and directing the Income-tax Officer to make a fresh assessment after allowing the assessee an opportunity. For elaborate reasons given in the impugned order, the Tribunal agreed with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and held that there was nothing wrong in the Appellate Assistant Commissioner s setting aside the order with a direction to do fresh assessment after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity. We fail to understand what grievance can the Department have against such an order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal. We also fail to understand as to what question of law is involved in such a conclusion which requires our opinion. In any event, on the facts stated above, we answer the first question also in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 39 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction For Reassessment, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... no details available on record of the expenditure of Rs. 3,05,981. In the profit and loss account, the expenditure is shown as share issue expenses. It is true that the Tribunal has described this expenditure in paragraph 8 of its judgment as being expenditure incurred on the issue of prospectus, legal and other expenses for the new issue of capital. However, in the absence of details, it is not possible to hold whether and to what extent the decision in Bombay Burmah. Trading Corporation Ltd. V.CIT 1984 145 ITR 793 will at all apply. Having regard to the above discussion, we hold that the expenditure incurred herein is not of revenue nature. Accordingly, we answer the question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Before concluding we would like to observe that the expression used in the question for raising working capital by way of replenishment is not quite correct. However, we need not pursue this aspect of the matter further. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 38 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Accounting, Capital Gains, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... t Ltd. 1986 161 ITR 524) that enhanced compensation accrues only when finally decreed. Thus the effect of the two decisions is that interest on enhanced compensation accrues even before accrual of the enhanced compensation itself. The incongruity does not end here. Despite the conclusion that interest in such cases accrues from year to year, it is doubtful whether it will be possible to hold the assessee responsible for not disclosing interest income in the past on accrual basis. The assessee can always take a stand that the amount of compensation including enhanced compensation or damages having been determined subsequently, he could not possibly anticipate accrual of interest. In the result, the second question at the instance of the assessee is answered thus Only that part of the interest which pertains to the period from April 1, 1969, up to the date of the consent decree is taxable as the assessee s income of the year under reference. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 37 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assets, Deduction, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... TR 171, very strongly relied upon by Shri Jetley. In that case, the assessee had purchased a property in 1955 for Rs. 25,000. The validity of the sale was questioned. Possession of the property was not given to the assessee. The assessee s claim was that the amount of Rs. 25,000 paid by him as consideration should alone be included in his wealth whereas the case of the Department was that the property belonged to the assessee and that its fair market value as on the relevant valuation date should be included in the wealth. The Karnataka High Court held that the assessee did own the property despite the disputes and it was the value of the property that is required to be included in the net wealth of the assessee. However, it is pertinent to mention that the admitted position in that case was that the assessee had claimed that he owned the house and there was no dispute about it. Under the circumstances, we do not see how this case is relevant in the facts of the present case.
-
1991 (4) TMI 36 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Additional Tax, Distributable Income ... ... ... ... ..... y under section 104 of the Act. We are fortified in our view by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Gangadhar Banerjee and Co. (P.) Ltd. 1965 57 ITR 176, where the Supreme Court held that, in the absence of any material to show that the real commercial profits were artificially reduced in the balance-sheet, it must be assumed that the amount mentioned in the balance-sheet correctly represented the commercial profits . In the assessee s case, barring the circumstances that the amount of secret commission has been disallowed in the assessment proceedings, no material has been brought on record to show that such an expenditure was not incurred or that it was a bogus entry. In the result, we answer the questions referred to us in the following manner Question No. 1 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 3 In the negative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs
-
1991 (4) TMI 35 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... That question can be gone into if and when it arises in an appropriate case. A minor point was urged by Sri Raja Ram Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, as to the meaning of the words employed in the last paragraph of the judgment of the Tribunal wherein it said that the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes perhaps, since it set aside the directions of the Commissioner, it said that the appeal was allowed in part. But, looking to the substance of the order, it is clear that the appeal was dismissed, while deleting the directions made by the Commissioner relating to the manner of making assessment which, according to the Tribunal, restricted the discretion and the judgment of the Income-tax Officer in an uncalled for fashion. Nothing turns upon the use of the words allowed in part. For the above reasons, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. A copy of this order shall be communicated to the respondents within one week from today.
-
1991 (4) TMI 34 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Company, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... n accepting money for issuing shares. What the assessee has done in this case is that it has straightaway issued shares in consideration of the drawings and designs received. Thus, the Tribunal, in our judgment, is right when it has observed that, when an asset is actually purchased for consideration from a third party, the shares issued for that purpose do not fall within the mischief of the Explanation. It may not be out of place to mention that the Tribunal has made very wide observations in the case but we need not go that far. In our view, an asset actually purchased does not fall within the Explanation as in this case. It cannot be said that book asset was created to bring capital into existence. Ordinarily, that would mean that an asset which is not in fact an asset is created to bring capital into existence. Accordingly, we are in agreement with the Tribunal and answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 33 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deduction For Priority Industry U/S 80I, Depreciation On Scientific Research Assets ... ... ... ... ..... basis of orders, (iii) placing orders for the manufacture of machinery with Turner Hoare, (iv) to see that the manufacturing process is carried on by Turner Hoare under the direct supervision of the assessee-company, (v) to have a check over the quality control and last but not the least, to be responsible for the proper functioning of the machinery and guarantee after sale service for a stipulated period. Out of so many activities, except for one activity, namely, getting the machinery manufactured through Turner Hoare, all other activities are, admittedly, undertaken by the assessee-company. In the circumstances, we find no difficulty in agreeing with the Tribunal that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacture of sugar and tea machinery and is, accordingly, qualified for relief under section 80-1. In the above view of the matter, we answer the third and fourth questions also in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There would be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 32 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... y the Tribunal. In our opinion, the following question of law does arise from the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in its view in rejecting the second appeal on consideration which found favour with it without deciding the case on merits ? The other questions as proposed in the application, in our opinion, do not arise out of the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. There is no indication in the order of the Tribunal that the controversy which is the subject-matter of the other questions was canvassed before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we decline to issue any direction for making the reference in respect of the other questions. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, B Bench, Allahabad, is directed to draw up a statement of the case and refer the aforesaid question for the opinion of that court. In the result, the application succeeds in part. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1991 (4) TMI 31 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... late authority as the assessee filed a number of evidence to substantiate its claim, namely, that what it was manufacturing was artificial silk. The assessee also relied upon the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Syntex Fabrics Ltd. The case of Syntex Fabrics Ltd. came to be considered by this court in I. T. R. No. 12 of 1978. Addl. CIT v. Syntex Fabrics Ltd. 1991 191 ITR 52, which was decided by a Division Bench of this court by its order dated November 19, 1990. This court answered the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The question now proposed before us contains a similar controversy as in the case of Syntex Fabrics Ltd., which already stands answered by the decision aforesaid. In this view of the matter, we feel that no statable question of law arises on which a direction could be issued to the Tribunal for making a reference to this court. The application is, accordingly, rejected. There shall be no order as to costs.
....
|
