|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 354 Records
-
1990 (8) TMI 34
The petitioner sought reference on four questions related to income tax issues. The High Court declined to refer the first three questions but directed the Tribunal to refer question No. 4 to the court. No costs were awarded.
-
1990 (8) TMI 33
The High Court of Allahabad dismissed the application as no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order regarding the treatment of damaged goods in the manufacturing process. The Tribunal's finding that the goods were of no value in the year of production was upheld. (Case citation: 1990 (8) TMI 33 - Allahabad High Court)
-
1990 (8) TMI 32
Issues Involved:
1. Criminal liability for delayed payment of tax deducted at source (TDS).
2. Prosecution of both the firm and its partners.
3. Validity of show-cause notices issued after a long delay.
4. Applicability of section 276B of the Income-tax Act to partnership firms and partners.
5. Requirement of mens rea for criminal liability under section 276B.
Summary:
1. Criminal Liability for Delayed Payment of TDS:
The petitioners contended that delayed payment of tax deducted at source (TDS) u/s 194A does not attract criminal liability for prosecution. They argued that any liability arising from delayed payment should be limited to penalty and interest, not criminal prosecution. The court noted that the Income-tax Act provides for imposition of penalty and interest u/s 201(1A), but not for criminal liability for delayed payment.
2. Prosecution of Both the Firm and Its Partners:
The petitioners argued that both the firm and its partners cannot be prosecuted simultaneously. They cited several judicial decisions to support their claim that a firm, being a juridical person, cannot be imprisoned, and hence cannot be prosecuted under section 276B. The court agreed, stating that the word "person" in section 276B does not include a partnership firm or its partners, and thus, they cannot be prosecuted under this section.
3. Validity of Show-Cause Notices Issued After a Long Delay:
The petitioners challenged the validity of the show-cause notices issued after a long lapse of 10 to 15 years. They argued that such delayed proceedings are contrary to public policy and constitute an abuse of process of law. The court agreed, noting that the delay in issuing the show-cause notices was unreasonable and that the proceedings should have been initiated within a reasonable time.
4. Applicability of Section 276B to Partnership Firms and Partners:
The court examined whether section 276B, which mandates imprisonment for failure to deduct and pay TDS, applies to partnership firms and their partners. It concluded that section 276B, as originally provided, does not apply to partnership firms or their partners. The court also noted that the amended section 276B, which came into force on October 1, 1975, cannot be applied retrospectively to the petitioners' case.
5. Requirement of Mens Rea for Criminal Liability:
The court emphasized that mens rea (criminal intent) is an essential ingredient for criminal liability under section 276B. It noted that the petitioners had no mens rea as the payments were made, albeit delayed, and the delay was due to financial stringency and the difference between the mercantile system of accountancy and cash availability. The court held that without mens rea, there cannot be criminal liability.
Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned show-cause notices dated November 20, 1986, and December 1, 1986, as well as the order dated February 17, 1989, passed by the Income-tax Officer. It ruled that the proceedings initiated under section 276B were not valid and that the petitioners could not be prosecuted for delayed payment of TDS. The court issued an appropriate writ of mandamus accordingly and did not impose any costs.
-
1990 (8) TMI 31
The High Court of Delhi dismissed the petition seeking reference of questions under the Income-tax Act, stating that the questions raised were not questions of law but rather questions of fact. The Tribunal's conclusions were based on material on record, and the petition was dismissed as no relevant material was produced.
-
1990 (8) TMI 30
Issues:
- Interpretation of section 32(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the allowance of a fresh claim of loss in reassessment proceedings.
- Whether a claim not made in the original assessment can be considered in reassessment proceedings without resulting in an escapement of income.
Analysis:
The case involved an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Department regarding the interpretation of section 32(1) in reassessment proceedings. The Department contended that the Tribunal should have referred a question of law concerning the allowance of a fresh claim of loss under section 32(1) not made in the original assessment. The assessments for the years 1968-69 and 1969-70 were reopened under section 147(a) as the Income-tax Officer believed that the assessee's taxable income had escaped assessment. In the reassessment, the assessee made a claim for loss under section 32(1) which was not raised in the original assessment. The Income-tax Officer rejected the claim, but the Tribunal allowed it based on precedent, specifically citing the case of New Kaiser-Hind Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd. The assessee argued that the issue was covered by the court's judgment and emphasized the need for a fresh assessment in reassessment proceedings.
The court considered the conflicting interpretations presented by the parties. The assessee relied on the judgment in New Kaiser-I-Hind Spg. and Wvg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT and the Full Bench judgment in CIT v. Indian Rare Earths Ltd. The court noted that reassessment is akin to a fresh assessment, allowing the assessee to make claims not raised during the original assessment. On the other hand, the Revenue cited the judgment in CWT v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. to support its position that reassessment does not permit the assessee to seek recomputation of wealth or redo the assessment. The court emphasized the need for a comprehensive reassessment under section 147, aligning with the view that reassessment is essentially a fresh assessment.
Ultimately, the court held that the issue was settled in favor of the assessee based on the precedent established in prior judgments. The court found no need to direct the Tribunal to refer the question as a matter of law, as the issue had already been conclusively addressed. Consequently, the rule was discharged, and no costs were awarded in the matter.
-
1990 (8) TMI 29
The High Court of Bombay directed the Tribunal to refer a question of law regarding the deduction of commission earned by the assessee for the assessment year 1980-81. The Tribunal must submit the statement of the case within six months.
-
1990 (8) TMI 28
Issues:
1. Whether an income-tax clearance certificate can be considered as property under the Indian Penal Code.
2. Whether the petitioner fraudulently induced the issuance of the income-tax clearance certificate.
3. Whether the prosecution has disclosed sufficient material to frame charges for the alleged offences.
Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case was whether an income-tax clearance certificate could be categorized as property under the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner contended that the certificate did not qualify as property as it did not result in any benefit to him. However, the court disagreed with this argument, citing precedents such as R. K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration and Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar. These cases established that items like admission cards and passports, despite lacking direct monetary value, could still be considered property due to their significance and utility to the holder. The court emphasized that the income-tax clearance certificate, essential for registering as a contractor, held immense value to the petitioner, making it a form of property under the law.
2. The court further delved into whether the petitioner had fraudulently induced the issuance of the income-tax clearance certificate. Referring to the statement of the witness who issued the certificate, it was evident that the petitioner's actions had led to the fraudulent acquisition of the document. The court highlighted that the purpose of the certificate was crucial for the petitioner's contracting endeavors, and his deception in obtaining it constituted cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The court relied on legal principles and previous judgments to support its conclusion that the petitioner's conduct amounted to an offense as alleged by the prosecution.
3. Lastly, the court addressed the contention regarding the sufficiency of material to frame charges for the offenses. It emphasized that the income-tax clearance certificate played a vital role in the petitioner's ability to secure contracts, making it a valuable asset obtained through deception. The court underscored that even if the certificate did not have direct monetary value, its importance for the petitioner's business pursuits elevated it to the status of property. Considering the legal precedents and the facts presented, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that the charges were justified based on the material before the court. The judgment highlighted the necessity for framing charges for all disclosed offenses, regardless of the specific allegations in the complaint, to ensure a comprehensive legal process.
-
1990 (8) TMI 27
The High Court of Bombay rejected an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court found that the assessee-company, a successor to a partnership, was entitled to the benefit of section 49(1)(iii)(a) and section 50(2) for computing capital gains. The court concluded that it was unnecessary to refer the questions raised by the Department as the answer was evident. The application was rejected, and no costs were awarded.
-
1990 (8) TMI 26
The High Court of Bombay considered two questions referred by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding penalty orders under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court found that the date of reference by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner was crucial in determining the validity of the penalty orders. Since the date of reference was not provided, the first question was left unanswered, and consequently, the second question was not addressed. The reference was returned unanswered with no order as to costs.
-
1990 (8) TMI 25
Issues:
Challenge to the constitutional validity of sections 44AC and 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on grounds of legislative competence and discrimination.
Analysis:
The petitioner, an abkari contractor and an assessee under the Income-tax Act, challenged the constitutional validity of section 44AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961, contending it to be ultra vires the Constitution. The petitioner also sought a reconsideration of earlier decisions upholding the provision. Previous judgments by a single judge and a Bench of the court had affirmed the validity of the provision. The original petition was dismissed by the learned single judge, and a review petition was also rejected.
The main grounds of attack on sections 44AC and 206C of the Income-tax Act were that they were beyond legislative competence and discriminatory. The court considered these aspects in detail, referring to previous judgments that upheld the legislation as valid. The device of presumptive taxation was highlighted as an effective measure against evasion in specific business types like liquor, timber, and forest produce. The court emphasized the importance of stringent measures in certain trades and found no arbitrariness in the enactment of the law.
The appellant's counsel argued that the legislation was invalid and caused hardship to the assessee. However, the court, after considering the matter extensively based on previous judgments, upheld the validity of the legislation. The court concurred with the decision of the learned single judge and dismissed the writ appeal challenging the constitutional validity of sections 44AC and 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
In conclusion, the writ appeal was dismissed, affirming the validity of sections 44AC and 206C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and rejecting the challenges based on legislative competence and discrimination.
-
1990 (8) TMI 24
Issues:
Assessment of income derived from partnership firms in the hands of an individual under section 64(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application related to the assessment year 1981-82 under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case involves the assessment of income derived by an individual from partnership firms, specifically regarding the taxability of the share of profits from the firms in the hands of the individual under section 64(2)(b). The individual, originally a partner in two firms, impressed a sum of money with the character of his Hindu undivided family property before retiring and rejoining the firms as the karta of his Hindu undivided family. The Department contended that the income should be taxed as the individual's under section 64(2)(b), but the Tribunal held otherwise, stating that the income should not be included in the individual's assessment.
The key legal issue revolves around the interpretation of section 64(2)(b) of the Income-tax Act, particularly determining whether the income derived by the Hindu undivided family from the partnership firms can be considered as income derived from the converted property. The court analyzed relevant precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in CIT v. Prem Bhai Parekh, where it was held that the income must have a direct or indirect nexus with the transferred assets to be considered as derived from the converted property. The court also considered the decision in Bhaichand Jivraj Muchhala v. CIT, which emphasized the necessity of a connection between the transferred assets and the income generated.
Moreover, the court referred to a Kerala High Court decision in CIT v. Cochin Refineries Ltd., highlighting the requirement of a direct connection between the business and the income generated. The court emphasized that section 64(2)(b) contains a deeming provision and should be strictly construed, stating that income derived from profits and not from the contributed capital cannot be considered as derived from the converted property. The court rejected the argument that Hindu undivided families in partnerships should be treated differently, asserting that the income must be directly linked to the converted property to fall under section 64(2)(b).
Ultimately, the court answered the question referred to it in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, concluding that the income derived from the partnership firms by the Hindu undivided family is not assessable in the individual's hands under section 64(2)(b). As a result, the Income-tax Application was dismissed, and the rule was discharged, with no order as to costs.
-
1990 (8) TMI 23
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves two main issues:
1. Whether the expenditure incurred on payment of commission on sales can be treated as sales promotion expenses for the purpose of computing disallowance under section 37(3A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the amount paid as penalty under section 5C of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act is allowable as a deduction.
Issue 1 - Expenditure on Commission:
The assessee claimed deduction of selling commission, which was disallowed by the Income-tax Officer under section 37(3A) as sales promotion expenditure. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) directed not to include the selling commission for computing the disallowance. The Tribunal upheld this decision, citing that commission payment cannot be equated with sales promotion expenses, in line with a previous judgment. The High Court agreed with this view, stating that commission payment cannot be considered as sales promotion expenses and hence cannot be disallowed under section 37(3A).
Issue 2 - Penalty under Section 5C of Rajasthan Sales Tax Act:
The Income-tax Officer disallowed a sum paid as penalty under section 5C of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed this amount as a deduction, considering it as a concession withdrawn rather than a penalty. The Tribunal affirmed this decision without detailed reasons. The High Court analyzed the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Sales Tax Act and concluded that the amount paid under section 5C was not a penalty but a withdrawal of concession. The Court held that the expenditure claimed would be allowed to the extent it represents the difference between the tax payable at the full rate and the tax payable at the concessional rate under section 5C(1) of the Act.
Separate Judgment:
The judgment was delivered by Judges Ajit Kumar Sengupta and Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee. Ajit K. Sengupta addressed the first issue regarding commission expenditure, while Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee concurred with the decision.
-
1990 (8) TMI 22
Issues:
- Interpretation of section 80J(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the carry forward of deficiency in case of loss in a new industrial undertaking.
Detailed Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Calcutta involved a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1976-77. The main question was whether the Appellate Tribunal was correct in disallowing the assessee's claim for carry forward of deficiency under section 80J(3) of the Act when the assessee-company suffered a loss in the new industrial undertaking. The Tribunal held that carry forward of deficiency is not permissible in case of loss in the industrial undertaking, citing that section 80J(3) only provides for two contingencies and not for the third contingency of loss.
However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's reasoning. The Court examined the provisions in the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1967, which introduced section 80J, and found that there was no intention by the Legislature to disallow carry forward of deficiency in case of loss. Section 80J(3) allows for the deduction of the relevant amount to be carried forward and adjusted against profits and gains of subsequent years for up to seven years, even in cases of shortfall or deficiency.
The Court emphasized that profits and gains also include a negative figure (loss) and that the contingency of a loss in an industrial undertaking is a normal incident of business that cannot be ignored. The Court referred to a previous decision where it was established that the deficiency referred to in section 80J is the amount by which profits and gains fall short of the calculated amount on the capital employed, even in the case of a loss.
Additionally, the Court highlighted a circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, stating that deficiency is required to be computed even when a new industrial undertaking suffers a loss. Therefore, the Court concluded that an industrial undertaking suffering a loss is entitled to carry forward the deficiency under section 80J(3).
In conclusion, the High Court answered the reference question in the negative and in favor of the assessee, rejecting the Tribunal's view. The judgment was agreed upon by both judges presiding over the case.
-
1990 (8) TMI 21
Issues Involved: The judgment addresses questions related to the cancellation of an order under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, application of rule 115 of the Income-tax Rules, adjustments for exchange fluctuations in plant and machinery costs, and entitlement to investment allowance under section 32A for technical know-how.
Cancellation of Order u/s 263: The High Court found that the Tribunal was justified in not invoking section 263 of the Income-tax Act, as there was no need to cancel the Commissioner's order. The Court deemed this issue straightforward and did not see the necessity of further inquiry or framing of questions.
Application of Rule 115 of Income-tax Rules: The Court clarified that rule 115, which concerns income accrual or arising, is not applicable to the valuation of plant and machinery. Therefore, the question regarding the correct application of rule 115 did not arise from the Tribunal's order and was deemed misconceived.
Adjustments for Exchange Fluctuations: Regarding adjustments for exchange rate fluctuations in plant and machinery costs, the Court referred to section 43A of the Income-tax Act. It explained that when there is an increase in liability due to exchange rate changes after acquiring assets from abroad, the increased liability should be added to the actual cost of the asset. The Court concluded that the Tribunal's decision on this matter was justified.
Entitlement to Investment Allowance u/s 32A: The Court discussed the eligibility for investment allowance under section 32A for technical know-how. It referenced previous judgments that interpreted the term "plant" broadly to include technical know-how. The Court concluded that technical know-how falls under the definition of "plant" for the purpose of investment allowance. It highlighted that the phrase "machinery or plant installed" in section 32A does not exclude technical know-how. Therefore, the Court found that the assessee was entitled to investment allowance for technical know-how.
Conclusion: The Court discharged the rule with no order as to costs, indicating that all the questions raised were adequately addressed in the judgment, and further inquiry was unnecessary based on the existing legal interpretations and precedents cited.
-
1990 (8) TMI 20
The High Court of Bombay dismissed the Department's application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal was justified in holding that reopening the assessment was not justified as it was a case of the Income-tax Officer changing his opinion on the same set of facts. The Tribunal rightly dismissed the application as there was no valid assumption of jurisdiction under section 147(b). The rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
-
1990 (8) TMI 19
Issues:
Imposition of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 and the cancellation thereof.
Analysis:
The Commissioner of Income-tax, Kolhapur, filed an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a reference to the High Court regarding various questions related to the imposition and cancellation of penalties under section 271(1)(c). The questions raised included whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in canceling the penalty levy for concealment based on different grounds, and whether the additions to the assessee's income were deemed income or direct income. The Tribunal had initially imposed penalties which were later challenged and dismissed on the grounds of lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for the penalties and dismissed the Department's appeals on merits. Subsequently, a miscellaneous application for rectification was filed, which was partly allowed by the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal rejected the Commissioner's application for reference to the High Court under section 256(1) of the Act.
The High Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, found that no referable question arose in this instance. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning and conclusion in dismissing the Department's application for rectification of the previous order. The High Court discharged the rule with no order as to costs, thereby upholding the Tribunal's decision regarding the penalties imposed and canceled under section 271(1)(c) for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75.
-
1990 (8) TMI 18
The High Court of Madras ruled that the assessee, a partner in a non-resident firm operating only in Malaysia, is not entitled to deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The decision was based on the finding that the firm did not export any goods from India, aligning with a previous court ruling. The common question of law was answered in the negative, with no costs awarded.
-
1990 (8) TMI 17
Issues:
1. Interpretation of funds as reserves for computation of capital under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, seeking a direction to the Tribunal to refer a question of law arising from the Tribunal's order. The question revolves around whether certain funds, including reserves under the Drugs Order (Price Control), provisions for contingencies, reserve for depreciation, provision for taxation, and provision for doubtful debts, should be considered as reserves for the computation of the assessee company's capital under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
The reserve under the Drugs Order (Price Control) was created in compliance with the Drugs (Price Control) Order, 1970, and represents an amount set aside from profits and surpluses not designated to meet any liability. Similarly, provisions for contingencies were established to address potential liabilities related to additional salary claims and bonus payments. The judgment distinguishes between reserves that exceed actual requirements, such as reserve for depreciation and provision for taxation, and those like provision for doubtful debts, which are not claimed as deductions and are treated as reserves due to specific accounting practices.
The court noted that a previous application for a similar question was rejected by the High Court, indicating that raising the proposed question would be redundant as the answer is evident. Consequently, the court discharged the rule without imposing any costs. This judgment provides clarity on the classification of various funds as reserves for capital computation under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, based on specific criteria and accounting practices followed by the assessee company.
-
1990 (8) TMI 16
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the question of whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in enhancing the assessment by adding a specific amount for the assessment year 1963-64.
Summary:
The case involved an assessee engaged in the manufacture and sale of jute goods, with the Income-tax Officer making an assessment under section 143(3) for the assessment year 1963-64. The Officer added a sum to the income based on a change in the method of valuation of closing stock. Additionally, the assessee had entered into forward contracts for the supply of raw jute, leading to claims for damages due to defaults by some parties. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, in the appeal for the assessment year 1962-63, had deleted part of the income related to these claims. However, for the assessment year 1963-64, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner issued a notice to show cause for adding an amount related to these claims, which the assessee contested before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal, citing a Supreme Court decision, held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's action was not tenable as the income in question had not been considered by the Income-tax Officer in the assessment order. The Tribunal deleted the addition made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
The Commissioner contended that there was no question of enhancement as the income had already been considered by the Income-tax Officer. However, the assessee argued that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to add the income in question, relying on another Supreme Court decision.
The High Court, after considering the arguments, found that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was not justified in enhancing the assessment by adding income that was not considered by the Income-tax Officer. The Court applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in a similar case and ruled in favor of the assessee, answering the reference question in the affirmative.
The judgment was delivered by Justice Ajit K. Sengupta, with agreement from Justice Bhagabati Prasad Banerjee.
-
1990 (8) TMI 15
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the Commissioner's cancellation of orders permitting compounding of agricultural income-tax under Section 65 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955.
2. Interpretation of Section 65(3) regarding the eligibility of partners to apply for compounding tax.
3. Consideration of individual land holdings versus proportionate share in the firm's land for compounding tax.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of the Commissioner's Cancellation of Orders:
The Commissioner issued a show-cause notice under Section 34 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955, proposing to cancel the orders of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer that permitted the petitioners to compound the agricultural income-tax under Section 65. The two reasons given were: (1) the 13 partners had no proportionate share of the land in the firm, and (2) a partner can apply for compounding only if he has two sources of income: individual land holdings and a proportionate share of the firm's land. The petitioners argued that the law only requires specifying the individual shares of the partners in the firm, which refers to their profit-sharing ratio.
2. Interpretation of Section 65(3):
The court examined whether the Commissioner's reasoning that the partners' shares in terms of lands had not been distinctly and specifically mentioned was valid. The court concluded that as long as it is possible to find out the proportionate share of the partner in the land held by the firm, the partner is entitled to the benefit of composition. The court accepted the petitioners' argument that the exact share of each partner need not be specified in terms of land but can be based on the profit-sharing ratio.
3. Consideration of Individual Land Holdings versus Proportionate Share:
The court referred to a Division Bench judgment which held that a partner is eligible for compounding the tax under Section 65(3) only if he has two sources of income: lands held individually and a proportionate share of the land held by the firm. The court noted that in cases where partners had both individual land holdings and a proportionate share in the firm's land, they were eligible for compounding the tax. In cases where partners only had a proportionate share in the firm's land and no individual holdings, they were not eligible.
The court discussed an alternative argument that the Division Bench judgment requires reconsideration, suggesting that Section 65(3) does not explicitly state that a partner must have two sources of income to apply for compounding. The court expressed the opinion that the aggregation of the two sources of income is for the purpose of assessing the composition fee and should not be a condition for eligibility.
Separate Judgments:
- Tax Cases (Revision) Nos. 432 and 434 of 1990: The petitioners satisfied both conditions (individual land holdings and proportionate share in the firm's land) and were entitled to the benefit of composition. The orders of the Commissioner were set aside.
- Tax Cases (Revision) Nos. 427 to 431, 433, 435 to 437, and 500 of 1990: The petitioners only had a proportionate share in the firm's land and no individual holdings, making them ineligible for compounding under Section 65(3). The court referred these cases to a Full Bench for reconsideration of the Division Bench judgment.
- Tax Cases (Revision) Nos. 266, 267, 611, and 612 of 1990: The petitioners had both individual land holdings and a proportionate share in the firm's land. The court applied the Division Bench judgment and allowed these cases, setting aside the Commissioner's orders.
The court concluded that the reasoning of the Division Bench judgment regarding the requirement of individual land holdings for eligibility under Section 65(3) might need reconsideration and referred some cases to a Full Bench for further scrutiny.
....
|
9911796707
