|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 365 Records
-
2001 (6) TMI 45 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance, Plant And Machinery, Trailers, Tea Manufacture ... ... ... ... ..... art of the plant and machinery and are entitled for investment allowance. The assessee has claimed from the very beginning that these leaves carrying basket trailers are used only for transporting the green leaves to the factories within the tea garden. They never used for any other purpose on the public roads for transportation of any material. That fact has not been disputed by the Revenue authorities. When these leaves carrying basket trailers are used only for transporting the green tea leaves to the factory which is situated within the tea garden and are never used for any transportation purpose on the public roads, in cur view such type of tools may be treated as part of the plant and machinery for the purpose of manufacturing of tea. In view of this undisputed fact in our view the Tribunal was justified in allowing the investment allowance on trailers. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2001 (6) TMI 44 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Compulsory Audit Of Accounts, Condition Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... e light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind or what he intended to do. Public orders made b y public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself. (see also Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851). For the foregoing reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed and order at annexure P-1, passed by the joint Commissioner of Income-tax, Special Range, Shimla, on June 19, 2000, is hereby quashed and set aside. It is, however, open to the authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law. It is also made clear that in case the decision is against the petitioner, it is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum. The petition is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 43 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Total Income, Inclusion Of Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... referred to us. Section 64 of the Income-tax Act was amended with effect from April 1, 1976. Prior to that date, the income of the minor from a firm could be included in that of the parent only if the parent was a partner of the firm. For the assessment year 1975-76, it is the unamended provision that is applicable and, therefore, for the assessment year 1975-76, the income of the minor children could not have been assessed in the hands of the father. The decision of the Tribunal as regards that year, is therefore, correct. However, for the succeeding assessment year 1976-77, the amended provision would apply. It is no longer necessary for the parent also to be a partner of the firm for the income of the minor children from the firm being assessed in his hands. The Tribunal, therefore, was in error in holding that the income of the minor children could not have been assessed in the hands of the father for the year 1976-77. The question referred to us is answered accordingly.
-
2001 (6) TMI 42 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... and gains are not sufficient to cover the benefit of deduction under section 80J of the Act. If an overall limit or ceiling is imposed on the deduction as submitted on behalf of the Revenue, the provisions of section 80J(3) of the Act would practically become nugatory. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the view that the assessee is entitled to benefit of deduction under the provisions of sections 80HH and 801 in full as directed by the Tribunal. In our opinion, the Tribunal has interpreted the provisions of sections 80HH and 80J correctly and we do not find any reason to opine in a different manner especially in view of the fact that for other assessment years this court and the Supreme Court have also upheld a similar view of the Tribunal. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we answer both the questions in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Reference stands answered accordingly and is disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 41 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income From House Property ... ... ... ... ..... om the property in his own right. When their Lordships have taken the view that having regard to the ground realities and further having regard to the object of the Income-tax Act, namely, to tax the income in the hands of the real owner, their Lord ships have taken the view that the owner is the person who is entitled to receive income from the property in his own right. On the same analogy-when the entire investment was made by the assessee, simply the flat is in the name of the wife of the assessee. In such a case, the income from that property should be taxed in the hands of the assessee and not in the hands of his wife. In the result, we answer question No. 1 in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The second question also we answer in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference so made stand disposed of accordingly. Parties are to act on a signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.
-
2001 (6) TMI 40 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Writ, Powers Of High Court ... ... ... ... ..... ected was in respect of one of the partners, the late Sri I. S. Rama Rao, who evidently died by that date, in respect of the assessment year 1978-79. It is therefore absolutely incorrect the petitioner s bare averment that the Department realised the tax to the tune of more than Rs.15 lakhs on account of the information provided by him, and the petitioner is put to strict proof of the same. The said averment is baseless and untenable. The factual averments made in para. 3 of the counter affidavit are not denied by the petitioner by filing reply affidavit, Be that as it may, there is a factual controversy between the petitioner and the respondents-authorities. Under article 226 of the Constitution of India, this court cannot take up Investigation of disputed facts and record a finding on a pure question of fact. On that short ground, we dismiss this writ petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to work out his remedies before the competent civil court, if he is so advised.
-
2001 (6) TMI 39 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Revision, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... ere is no material justifying the issuance of the show-cause notice . The same principles will apply to notices under section 263 of the Act. However, the discussion in respect of all points becomes academic in view of the fact that the notice ought to be set aside since the original order is merged with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Thus, taking into the totality of the matter I am of the view that the show-cause notice has to be quashed and, accordingly, the same is quashed under this order. The writ petition is thus disposed of. No order is passed as to costs. Xeroxed certified copy of this judgment will be supplied to the parties within seven days from the date of putting in requisition for drawing up and completion of the order as well as the certified copy thereof. All parties are to act on a xeroxed signed copy minutes of the operative part of this judgment upon usual undertaking and as per the satisfaction of the officer of this court in respect as above.
-
2001 (6) TMI 38 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... ustained by the Tribunal, the final addition of Rs.1,81,876 was sustained on account of the concealed income, when there was evidence for such concealed income and admission by the author of the papers the addition has been sustained by the Tribunal. That addition has not been challenged by the assessee. In these circumstances, this is a fit case for penalty. What other evidences are required, we do not understand, especially after the amendment in the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) which has come with effect from April 1, 1976. We do not find any reason for cancelling the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal has wrongly relied on the decision of this court in the case of Girdharilal Soni 1989 179 ITR 111, which has no application after the amendment in Explanation to section 271(1)(c). In the result, we answer the question in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2001 (6) TMI 37 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Royalty Payable To State Government ... ... ... ... ..... the deduction has also been denied, as liability is uncertain. We do not understand once it is a statutory liability and a fixed amount of rate has been given in the Government order how it can be an uncertain liability. It is a certain and statutory liability. The Tribunal has wrongly reversed the view taken by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In the result, we answer question No. 1 that royalty liability is a certain liability and not a contingent liability, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We answer question No. 2 in the negative so far whether it is a contingent liability and we also answer that the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee has chosen to adopt the cash system of accounting in respect of royalty liability that finding is perverse. The answer is in favour of the assessee. Question No. 3 we answer in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. he reference so made stands disposed of accordingly.
-
2001 (6) TMI 36 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Voluntary Disclosure Of Income Scheme, Declaration Under Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... dvanced by the appellant is that she was carried away by the news in TV and newspapers that payment could be made by March 31, 1998. No such news or press communique from the income-tax authorities has been placed before the court. The explanation, therefore, is apparently false. The cases in which the delay was overlooked for extraordinary reasons, viz., Smt. Laxmi Mittal v. CIT 1999 238 ITR 97 (P and H) and CIT v. E. Prahalatha Babu 2001 249 ITR 309 (Mad), do not come to the aid of the appellant. It may be pointed out that the decision in Laxmi Mittal s case was considered by the Division Bench in Vyshnavi Appliances Pvt. Ltd. v. CBDT 2000 243 ITR 101 (AP) to which one of us (Chief Justice) was a party. In that case also, the Division Bench found no valid reason for condonation of delay. On that short ground itself, similar writ petition was rejected by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The position is the same in the present case also. The writ appeal is therefore dismissed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 35 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Interest Payable By Government, Excess Payment Of Advance-tax ... ... ... ... ..... does not really arise out of the facts and circumstances of the case decided by the Tribunal, answering such a question becomes a mere academic exercise inasmuch as the Tribunal will not be in a position to bring the order passed earlier by it in conformity with such opinion of the High Court as the opinion expressed by the High Court will be on an academic question of law not arising or applicable to the case on hand. But when once the High Court answers the reference, the Tribunal is bound to modify its earlier decision to bring it in conformity with the opinion expressed by the High Court. We are not inclined to put the Tribunal to this predicament by answering a question which really does not arise from out of the facts and circumstances of the case in respect of which the Tribunal has rendered its decision. Accordingly, we decline to answer the reference and return the reference made to us without answering. The assessee and the Department to bear their respective costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax, False Verification ... ... ... ... ..... counsel for the respondent, there may be assessment order or reassessment order on the basis of the subsequent development or on the basis of the request made by the petitioners by the authorities concerned. But, that would not absolve the accused persons from the offences which had already been committed. As indicated above, there is no finding by any authority which has got any bearing or impact caused to the facts alleged in the complaint. In view of what is stated above, the petitions are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same are dismissed. Consequently, Crl. M. P. Nos. 1631, 1633, 1635, 1637, 1639, 1641 and 1643 of 1999 are closed. However, it is made clear that the above observations have been made only for the purpose of disposal of these petitions in the context of answering the questions posed before this court. Therefore, the trial court may decide the case on the basis of the materials placed before it uninfluenced by any of the observations made above.
-
2001 (6) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Written Down Value, Plant, Hotel ... ... ... ... ..... nswered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The other question referred at the instance of the Revenue is as to whether the assessee is entitled to treat the hotel building as a plant and claim depreciation on that basis. On that question, this court has already held in the case of CIT v. N. Sathyanathan and Sons P. Ltd. 2000 242 ITR 514, that a hotel building cannot be regarded as a plant for the purpose of depreciation. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Anand Theatres 2000 244 ITR 192 held that the hotel building cannot be regarded as a plant. The view of the Tribunal that the assessee s hotel building should be treated as plant for the purpose of depreciation is plainly erroneous. This question as to whether the hotel building should be considered as a plant for the purpose of allowing depreciation under section 32 of the Act is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The questions are, therefore, answered accordingly.
-
2001 (6) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Transfer of Assets, Interpretatin of Taxing Statutes, Strict Interpretation ... ... ... ... ..... come directly or indirectly realised from assets transferred or to the income realised from the transferred asset or the one substituted for the transferred asset. One other submission that was made by learned counsel for the asses see needs to be noticed. He points out that the tax implication is only Rs.1,100 and did not warrant a reference at the instance of the Revenue. Had this been a petition seeking reference we would have declined to call for a reference. Since the reference is before us, it is just that we record our answer to the question that has been referred. We answer the question referred to us, as to whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and having regard to the provisions of section 64(1)(iv) of the Income tax Act, the Tribunal was right in deleting the assessee s wife s interest income included in the income of the assessee, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The assessee shall be entitled to costs in the sum of Rs.2,000.
-
2001 (6) TMI 31 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Charitable Trust, Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... oes not fall within sub-section (4A). The trust is not only for public religious purposes so it does not fall within clause (a). It is a trust not an institution, so it does not fall within clause (b). It must, therefore, be held that for the assessment years in question the trust was not entitled to the exemption contained in section 11 in respect of the income of its newspaper. When the trust and institution referred to in section 13 are not one and the same thing and they are different entities clause (cc) of sub-section (3) of section 13 refers to the manager of the institution and not the manager of the trust and in the case in hand the advance has been given to the manager of the trust and not the manager of the institution. In view of these admitted facts, no interference is called for in the order of the Tribunal. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference so made stands disposed of.
-
2001 (6) TMI 30 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Voluntary Disclosure Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... er the Amnesty Scheme and the Department had accepted all the returns filed under the Amnesty Scheme except the return filed for 1983-84, for which no reasons are given. The Central Board of Direct Taxes, New Delhi, is directed to dispose of exhibit R-2(d) application pending before it in accordance with law and in the light of the observations and directions contained hereinabove within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The appellants will also be afforded an opportunity of being heard before passing orders as directed above. An interim order of stay of further proceedings in C. C. No. 62 of 1987,of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate s Court, Ernakulam, was passedon April 9, 1992, in C. M. P. No. 3190 of 1992. The said stay is in force as on today. In the above circumstances, the said stay order will continue to be in force till the disposal of exhibit R-2(d) application as directed above. The writ appeal is allowed as above.
-
2001 (6) TMI 29 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... for any public purpose of a charitable or religious nature in India . The assets held by the assessee in this case, are not assets forming part of any business. There is no finding that any part of the assets of the trust are used for any purpose outside India. The activities of the trust are running schools and managing the mosque and darga in Coimbatore. This court in the case of CWT v. Attur Thuluva Vellalar Sangam 2000 243 ITR 774, has held that it is not essential that a trust claiming to be a charitable trust must be wholly and exclusively engaged in charitable activities and that it would be sufficient if the primary and predominant object is charitable. The activities of the trust here are charitable, running of schools being the primary object. The Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of section 5(1)(i) of the Wealth-tax Act. The questions referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2001 (6) TMI 28 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Section 3 defines the previous year, i.e., accounting year. Sub-section (3) of section 3 gives the liberty to the assessee that assessee may have different previous year in respect of a separate source of his income. Admittedly, the assessee has opted December 31, 1964, as year ending, i.e., ending of the previous year. He never claimed that for the source of capital gain the year ending will be March 31, 1965. The option is with the assessee and not with the Department. Once the assessee has opted his previous year as calendar year ended on December 31, 1964, no capital gain can be taxed, on account of the land transferred or vested in the Government after the end of the accounting year. In view of the facts referred to in the judgment and on record we find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference application thus stands disposed of.
-
2001 (6) TMI 27 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... w India Maritime Agencies P. Ltd. 1994 207 ITR 392, wherein it has been held thus When a company gives its house as residence to its director, it is doing so only in the course of its business. The principle is that if the owner of a property carries on business with a property owned by him, the income from that property must be assessed as only income from business . Since, the Tribunal found that the house property had been used by the assessee as a part of the business and treated as business, the finding of the Tribunal that the income from the property could not be assessed separately as income from house property and included in the assessee s total income, was correct. Following the said decision, we hold that the house properties involved are a part of the business assets of the assessee and the income derived therefrom cannot be assessed separately as income from house property . We, therefore, answer these questions in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2001 (6) TMI 26 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... It is not the year in which the legal entity that owns the undertaking is formed that matters what is material is the year in which the industrial undertaking is set up. Every change in the ownership of that undertaking does not result in the same industrial undertaking being set up over and over again. Counsel for the Revenue referred us to the case of CIT v. Hyderabad Bottling Co. P. Ltd. 2000 243 ITR 476 (AP). The Andhra Pradesh High Court, therein took the view that the benefit provided under that section can be extended to a new product and the expenses incurred on advertisement by the industrial undertaking in respect of its new product would come within the purview of section 37(3D). That decision is not of any assistance for the purpose of deciding the question which requires our consideration here. The Tribunal was dearly in error in taking the view that it did and the question referred to us, therefore, is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
....
|
