|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 364 Records
-
1995 (11) TMI 24
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the nature of capital assets (short-term or long-term) for tax purposes.
2. Applicability of amended definitions of capital assets for assessment purposes.
3. Interpretation of taxation statutes and the timing of tax liability.
Summary:
1. Determination of the Nature of Capital Assets:
The respondent-assessee sold certain plots of land between December 26, 1973, and March 25, 1974. The assessee claimed that these were long-term capital assets as they were held for more than 24 months but less than 60 months, based on the definition of "short-term capital asset" u/s 2(42A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, prior to its amendment. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) rejected this claim, applying the amended definition effective from April 1, 1974, which extended the holding period to 60 months for short-term capital assets.
2. Applicability of Amended Definitions:
The ITO argued that tax is assessed based on the law prevailing on the first day of the assessment year, i.e., April 1, 1975, for the assessment year 1975-76. The Tribunal, however, held that the nature of the asset should be determined based on the law in force on the date of transfer, not the commencement of the assessment year. The Tribunal concluded that the plots were long-term capital assets when transferred, and thus, the gains should be taxed as long-term capital gains.
3. Interpretation of Taxation Statutes and Timing of Tax Liability:
The court examined whether the nature of capital assets should be determined based on the law in force on the date of transfer or the commencement of the assessment year. The court referred to several precedents, including Maharajah of Pithapuram v. CIT and CIT v. Isthmian Steamship Lines, which established that the law in force at the commencement of the assessment year governs the assessment unless otherwise stated. However, the court distinguished between the taxable event (transfer of assets) and the assessment of tax liability, concluding that the nature of the asset should be determined at the time of the taxable event.
Conclusion:
The court held that the nature of the capital asset (short-term or long-term) must be determined based on the law in force on the date of transfer. The Tribunal was justified in treating the plots as long-term capital assets, and the gains should be taxed accordingly. The court answered the question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, with no order as to costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 23
The High Court of Patna quashed a criminal prosecution under section 277 of the Income-tax Act against the petitioner as the penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) had been dropped earlier. The court relied on precedents and a recent departmental circular, discharging the petitioner from criminal liability. (Case citation: 1995 (11) TMI 23 - PATNA High Court, Judge: Narayan Roy)
-
1995 (11) TMI 22
The High Court of Rajasthan ruled in favor of the Revenue in a case regarding the calculation of deductions under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held that deductions should be based on net income, not gross income as per the profit and loss account of the assessee. The Tribunal was deemed unjustified in its decision. (Case citation: 1995 (11) TMI 22 - RAJASTHAN High Court)
-
1995 (11) TMI 21
Issues: Interpretation of section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act for exemption on factory land and building collectively owned by partners.
Analysis:
The High Court of Rajasthan addressed the issue raised by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the entitlement of the assessee to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act for a factory land and building owned by a partnership firm. The Tribunal referred the question of law to the High Court for interpretation. The assessee argued that the question did not apply to the case as the Wealth-tax Officer disallowed the exemption claim, suggesting a need to reframe the question or seek a fresh statement. The counsel for the assessee also contended that a previous judgment required reconsideration in light of subsequent judgments from other High Courts. However, the Revenue supported the Tribunal's decision, stating that the question referred was the only one arising from the Tribunal's order and did not require reframing. The High Court considered the submissions from both parties.
The first contention raised by the assessee was that the question referred did not arise in the case. However, the High Court clarified that the question was raised by the Revenue and referred to the High Court based on the assessee's application. Therefore, the contention that the question did not apply was dismissed. The next issue raised was regarding the reconsideration of a Division Bench judgment in light of later judgments from other High Courts. The High Court reviewed the Division Bench judgment and concluded that it did not require reconsideration as no subsequent judgments contradicted its findings. The High Court maintained the validity of the Division Bench judgment.
The High Court found that the material facts of the case were similar to a previous case and ruled in line with the earlier judgment. It held that the assessee was not entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(iv) of the Wealth-tax Act for the factory land and building collectively owned by the partners. Consequently, the reference was answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The judgment emphasized that the exemption could be granted to the firm as a whole, not to individual partners collectively owning the property. The High Court upheld the decision denying the exemption to the assessee in this case.
-
1995 (11) TMI 20
The High Court of Rajasthan ruled that depreciation and investment allowance should be deducted while calculating the deduction under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act. The court held that the net income as per the provisions of the Act is eligible for the deduction, not the gross income. The judgment favored the Revenue and went against the assessee. (1995 (11) TMI 20 - RAJASTHAN High Court)
-
1995 (11) TMI 19
Issues:
1. Interpretation of cash compensatory receipt as a revenue receipt for taxation.
2. Entertaining additional ground of appeal without affording the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine the claim.
3. Impact of amendment in taxing provisions regarding incentives received by exporters.
Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case was the interpretation of cash compensatory receipt (CCS) as a revenue receipt for taxation. The Tribunal allowed the claim of the assessee, holding that CCS cannot be treated as a revenue receipt. However, the Department's view was that CCS, along with other subsidies received by exporters, should be considered revenue receipts and hence taxable. The law was amended retrospectively to include CCS, profit on sale of import entitlement licences, and drawback of duty as chargeable to income tax under the head 'Profits and gains of business or profession'. This amendment clarified the taxability of these incentives, resolving the litigation surrounding the issue.
2. Another issue raised was whether the Tribunal was justified in entertaining an additional ground of appeal without giving the Assessing Officer an opportunity to examine the claim. The Tribunal's decision to allow the claim without affording the Assessing Officer a chance to assess it was a point of contention. However, the subsequent amendment in the taxing provisions made this issue moot, as the law now clearly specifies the tax treatment of these incentives, eliminating the need for further examination.
3. The judgment highlighted the impact of the amendment in the taxing provisions regarding incentives received by exporters. The insertion of new clauses in section 28 of the Income-tax Act specified that profit on sale of import entitlement licences, CCS, and drawback of duty are now chargeable to income tax. These changes were made with retrospective effect from the dates these incentives were introduced. As a result, the reference was answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, as the amended provisions clarified the taxability of these incentives and resolved any ambiguity surrounding their treatment under the Income-tax Act.
-
1995 (11) TMI 18
Issues:
1. Interpretation of deduction under section 80HH of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Taxability of cash compensatory support receipt for export.
Interpretation of deduction under section 80HH:
The High Court was presented with the issue of whether the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to allow the deduction under section 80HH without deducting investment allowance, deduction under section 35B/80J, etc. The court referred to a previous case and highlighted that for the purpose of determining relief under section 80HH, the gross total income should be calculated after deducting unabsorbed losses and unabsorbed depreciation. The net income, as per the provisions of the Act, is eligible for deduction under section 80HH, not the gross income. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee on this issue.
Taxability of cash compensatory support receipt for export:
Regarding the taxability of cash compensatory support (CCS) receipts for exports, the court noted that amendments were made to the law after the reference was made by the Tribunal. An Explanatory Note issued in this regard clarified that CCS, drawback of duty, and profit on sale of import entitlement licenses were considered revenue receipts and hence taxable. The court highlighted that new clauses were inserted in section 28 of the Income-tax Act to specify that profit on sale of import entitlement licenses, CCS, and drawback of duty shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession." These amendments were made effective retrospectively from the dates these incentives were introduced. Consequently, due to the amended provisions, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee on this issue as well.
In conclusion, the High Court answered both questions in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions and amendments made to the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1995 (11) TMI 17
Issues: Allegations of misconduct against tax officials, delay in conducting search, leakage of information by petitioner, reward payment to petitioner, compliance with legal procedures.
Analysis:
The petitioner alleged that the tax officials postponed a search at the premises of Jain Brothers, enabling them to continue illegal activities involving tax evasion and smuggling of gold. The petitioner provided detailed information about the illegal activities of Jain Brothers to various authorities, including the CBI and the Chief Vigilance Officer. However, the search was repeatedly delayed, leading to suspicions of collusion between the officials and the accused parties.
The respondent contended that the search postponements were due to the petitioner's disclosure of the impending search to multiple government departments and even to Anand Jain, whose premises were to be searched. The respondent argued that the search lost its significance once the information was leaked by the petitioner. Additionally, the respondent highlighted that substantial amounts were surrendered by Jain Brothers during surveys, leading to a reward payment to the petitioner.
The court found that the allegations against the tax officials were not substantiated. It was noted that the search had to be abandoned due to the petitioner's actions, which compromised the element of surprise essential for such operations. The court acknowledged the reward payment made to the petitioner and emphasized that further amounts would be paid after the completion of assessments. The court concluded that the respondent had followed legal procedures and conducted the search and survey appropriately, disposing of the petition.
The petitioner's admission that the case was referred to the Legal Aid Cell of the Supreme Court and subsequently to the CBI indicated ongoing actions regarding the matter. Therefore, no further orders were deemed necessary by the court. The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining confidentiality in such operations and the need for proper assessment before final reward payments.
-
1995 (11) TMI 16
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of section 144B for the assessment year 1975-76.
2. Justification of disallowing Rs. 7,11,612 under section 35B.
3. Deductibility of surtax in arriving at total income.
4. Allowability of extra-shift allowance of Rs. 3,66,496 for the plant.
5. Applicability of section 40A(5) for employment periods outside India.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 144B for the Assessment Year 1975-76:
The Tribunal's decision that the provisions of section 144B, effective from January 1, 1976, apply to the assessment year 1975-76 was upheld. This issue is covered by the decision in Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1995] 213 ITR 106, and thus, the question was answered in the negative and in favor of the Revenue.
2. Disallowance of Rs. 7,11,612 under Section 35B:
The assessee claimed a weighted deduction under section 35B for an overriding commission paid to foreign buyers. The Tribunal found that the payment was not for advertisement, publicity, or distribution but was effectively a rebate or discount reducing the sale price. The Tribunal's decision was based on the nature of the transaction and the lack of evidence showing an agent-principal relationship. The Tribunal's finding that the payment was a price reduction rather than an expenditure under section 35B was upheld. The court emphasized that nomenclature is not conclusive; the true nature of the payment, being a rebate, does not qualify for deduction under section 35B. Thus, question No. 2 was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue.
3. Deductibility of Surtax in Arriving at Total Income:
This issue is covered by the decision in Lubrizol India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 25. The Tribunal's decision that surtax payable by the assessee is not deductible in arriving at the total income was upheld. The question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue.
4. Allowability of Extra-Shift Allowance of Rs. 3,66,496 for the Plant:
The assessee's claim for extra-shift allowance on certain electrical items was rejected. The Tribunal found that these items fall under the category of electrical machinery, which is not eligible for extra-shift allowance as per Appendix I, Part I, Item III(iv) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The court interpreted "wiring" to include wiring for transformers and other stationary plant, not just for electric light and fan installations. Thus, the Tribunal's disallowance of extra-shift allowance was upheld, and question No. 4 was answered in the negative and in favor of the Revenue.
5. Applicability of Section 40A(5) for Employment Periods Outside India:
The assessee's counsel did not pursue this question due to insufficient facts. Therefore, the question was returned unanswered.
Conclusion:
The reference was answered with no order as to costs, reflecting the court's agreement with the Tribunal's findings on all issues except for the unanswered question No. 5.
-
1995 (11) TMI 15
Issues:
1. Interpretation of the term 'assessed tax' in section 271(1)(i)(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Determining the relevance of advance tax payable by an unregistered firm for calculating penalty under section 271(1)(i)(b) of the Income-tax Act.
Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh involved the Commissioner of Income-tax seeking reference on two questions of law arising from the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal's decision regarding penalty calculation. The first issue revolved around the interpretation of 'assessed tax' in section 271(1)(i)(b) in light of the non-obstante clause in section 271(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal concluded that the amount of advance tax payable by an unregistered firm is relevant for quantifying the penalty, rather than the advance tax actually paid by the registered firm. The High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's decision and held that the questions raised were debatable and warranted consideration.
The High Court noted that there was no direct decision on the specific issue raised in the case. While the respondent cited a previous judgment, the Court found it not directly applicable. Additionally, the Court discussed a circular by the Central Board of Direct Taxes regarding not filing references for cases with a tax effect below a certain threshold. However, the Court found that this policy decision might not apply to penalties, and the Court should consider debatable legal questions irrespective of the tax amount involved.
In considering the relevance of advance tax payable by an unregistered firm for penalty calculation, the Court directed the reference of the questions raised by the Commissioner. The Court clarified and slightly recast the second question for reference. Ultimately, the Court allowed the Income-tax Commissioner's plea, emphasizing the importance of addressing the legal issues raised in the case.
-
1995 (11) TMI 14
Issues:
1. Whether cash subsidy granted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to film producers is meant for defraying production costs?
2. Whether the Tribunal was correct in deleting the cash subsidy received by the assessee based on previous court decisions and without considering the subsequently inserted provisions of rule 9A of the Income-tax Rules?
Analysis:
In the present case, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh-I, Hyderabad, sought reference of questions related to two income-tax cases under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The issues revolved around the correctness of the Tribunal's decision regarding the cash subsidy granted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh to film producers and the deletion of such subsidies from the assessee's income. The Tribunal based its decision on the precedent set by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Chitra Kalpa [1989] 177 ITR 540, which deemed the subsidy as a capital asset meant to defray production costs. This decision distinguished an earlier case, CIT v. Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. [1985] 152 ITR 39, by highlighting the nature of the subsidy and its purpose. The Tribunal's reliance on these judgments led to the deletion of the cash subsidy from the assessee's income.
The court acknowledged the argument presented by the Income-tax Department's standing counsel regarding the applicability of rule 9A of the Income-tax Rules. However, the court noted that the effect of rule 9A was not considered by the Tribunal or the Division Bench in the previous cases cited. The court highlighted that the proviso to rule 9A, which could potentially support the Revenue's position, was inserted after the relevant assessment years in question. Therefore, the court found it contentious to rely on rule 9A without considering the proviso, especially since it was not raised or decided by the Tribunal. Consequently, the court declined to direct a reference of the question related to rule 9A in the applications.
Ultimately, the court dismissed both income-tax cases, emphasizing that the questions raised did not warrant a reference in light of the unresolved issues surrounding rule 9A and its applicability during the relevant assessment years. The judgment concluded by stating that no costs were to be awarded in this matter.
-
1995 (11) TMI 13
Issues involved:
The judgment involves three main issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal to ascertain the method of accounting for pension liability.
2. Allowability of surtax liability as a deduction in computing total income for income-tax purposes.
3. Classification of loss from foreign remittances and revaluation of foreign liabilities as capital expenditure.
Jurisdiction to ascertain accounting method for pension liability:
The Tribunal remanded the matter to the Appellate Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. The assessee requested the matter to be heard by the Tribunal instead, citing previous favorable decisions. Both parties agreed for the Tribunal to reconsider the issue based on past orders and court decisions. The High Court directed the Tribunal to examine the matter itself, considering the previous orders and observations.
Surtax liability deduction:
The High Court referred to a previous decision in Lubrizol India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 25, stating that the issue was covered by that ruling. Following the precedent, the Court answered in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue.
Classification of loss from foreign remittances:
Referring to the decision in Padamjee Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 210 ITR 97, the Court found that the issue was also covered in favor of the Revenue. The Court answered question No. 3 in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue. The Tribunal was directed to consider the issue of depreciation, if raised by the assessee, in accordance with the law.
Conclusion:
The Court disposed of the reference accordingly, without answering question No. 1 directly. The Tribunal was instructed to examine the controversy itself based on previous orders and observations. No costs were awarded in the matter.
-
1995 (11) TMI 12
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the Income Tax Case. The court declined to refer two questions to the Tribunal as they did not arise from the Tribunal's order. The court found that the deduction for donation of immovable property was not considered by the Income-tax Officer and was not raised before the Tribunal, so it did not arise from the Tribunal's order. The court also noted that the Income-tax Officer's finding cannot be interpreted to mean that the assessee was not entitled to the benefit under section 35(2A) of the Act.
-
1995 (11) TMI 11
The appeal was filed six days beyond the period of limitation without sufficient cause for the delay. The Tribunal rejected the appeal as barred by time. A miscellaneous petition for rectification was also rejected. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, and the appeal was rejected.
-
1995 (11) TMI 10
The High Court of Delhi ruled that cash allowances for house rent expenses are considered as salary and not perquisites, thus not subject to disallowance under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act. The court also held that penalties paid for delayed sales tax are not deductible as business expenditure.
-
1995 (11) TMI 9
Claim for Depreciation on the hotel buildings - cinema building or hotel building - treated as a plant - Whether the hotel or cinema building is a plant or not, the provisions of section 32 of the Income-tax Act - Word "building" - distinction between "plant" and "machinery" - HELD THAT:- The various principles which emerge from the various decisions of the apex court and other courts can be summarised as under :
(i) The functional test is a decisive test.
(ii) An item which falls within the category of "building" cannot be considered to be "plant". Buildings with particular specification for atmospheric control like moisture temperature are not "plant".
(iii) In order to find out as to whether a particular item is a plant or not, the meaning which is available in the popular sense, i.e., the people conversant with the subject-matter would attribute to it, has to be taken.
(iv) The term "plant" would include any article or object, fixed or movable, live or dead, used by a businessman for carrying on his business and it is not necessarily confined to any apparatus which is used for mechanical operations or process or is employed in mechanical or industrial business. The article must have some degree of durability.
(v) The building in which the business is carried on cannot be considered to be a "plant".
(vi) The item should be used as a tool of the trade with which the business is carried on. For that purpose the operations it performs have to be examined.
Hotel business is a business in which the building is one of the components besides the other facilities like food, air-conditioning, etc. The building itself is of different uses like rooms for stay, conference hall, kitchen, etc. The hotels are also of different categories. The facility in the hotels differs according to the star mark given to them. The facility of comfortable stay is also provided by guest houses, house hotels, inn, sarai, etc. The building which is used in the business of hotel remains a building inspite of the fact that it is decorated by plaster of paris, timber work, etc. If the skeleton of the building without decoration is building then the items by which it is decorated would not change the character of building. The item may, however, be considered as plant subject to its use. The use of the building is as a setting. Building is not used as a tool of the trade. Different rates of depreciation for building have been provided which also makes the legislative intent clear that the different types of buildings remain as building.
The amendment of section 32(1)(v) has only clarified the legislative intent that the building of hotel is a building, though by amendment a higher rate of deprecation is provided for it. In an industry no production can be normally carried on without a building where the plant and machinery is installed but for that reason the building cannot be considered as plant when there is a separate entry for buildings for purpose of depreciation. Buildings may accommodate plant and machinery or living persons. It remains a building. The structure having roof and durability is considered as building. Every movable and immovable property has its categorisation. It is basically the hospitality which is provided in a hotel, may be by human service or by equipment, surroundings, atmosphere, etc., which is provided by decorated rooms beautiful furnishing. The recompense of the hotelier is for the care, pain, facility which is provided by him by way of service rendered and not by providing the room alone it could be considered as a tool of the trade. The hotel industry is a service oriented industry and the better the service the higher the charges. Looking to the common parlance meaning and the specific use of the word "building" in section 32 of the Income-tax Act, we are of view that the building of hotel is a "building."
The building which is used for accommodating the cinema-goers remains a building even if specially designed. All the provisions of local laws including approval from the local authorities for construction of a building, levy of land and building tax, etc. are applicable to it. A cinema may have air-conditioning in its building besides the furniture but for that reason it will not cease to be building.
In respect of cinema the work is carried on by the projector which displays the film on screen. The hall of the cinema may be air-conditioned and even it may be an open theatre. In the case of Mohd. Jaffar Ali, AIR 1971 AP 156 [FB], it was considered that a cinema is nothing but a large house with furniture, etc., supplied and cinema apparatus and other accessories affixed therein.
Thus, we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding that the cinema building/hotel building belonging to the assessee-firm should be treated as "plant" and depreciation should be allowed at the rate applicable to a "plant". Accordingly, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 8
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh dismissed the income-tax case regarding the treatment of capital subsidy as actual cost of assets. The court held that the subsidy was not intended to meet the cost of assets based on previous decision and rejected the reference application. The court found no basis to reconsider the decision despite new factual aspects presented. The case was dismissed with no costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 7
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the expenditure incurred on asphalting of roads constitutes revenue expenditure.
2. Whether the payment of $13,500 regarding process know-how is revenue expenditure.
3. Whether the investment allowance on the plant and machinery installed in the hatchery division is permissible.
4. Whether the assessee is an industrial company even though its activities do not amount to manufacture.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Expenditure on Asphalting of Roads:
The first issue concerns the admissibility of a deduction of Rs. 3,31,043 incurred by the respondent for asphalting existing roads within its premises. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)'s decision that this expenditure is business expenditure and not capital expenditure. The Tribunal found that the asphalted area, covering internal roads within a 55-acre premise, was an improvement of existing roads rather than the creation of new roads. The Supreme Court's ruling in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 was cited, emphasizing that not all enduring benefits are capital expenditures if they facilitate business operations without creating new capital assets. The court concluded that the expenditure was revenue in nature, answering the first question against the Revenue.
2. Payment for Process Know-How:
The second issue pertains to the payment of $13,500 for process know-how related to a biovaccine unit. The Tribunal found that $13,500 of the total $30,000 paid under a collaboration agreement was for services to maximize plant productivity, which it treated as revenue expenditure. The Tribunal relied on the Full Bench decision in Praga Tools Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 123 ITR 773, which supported the classification of such payments as revenue expenditure. The court found no error in the Tribunal's decision, answering the second question against the Revenue.
3. Investment Allowance on Plant and Machinery:
The third issue is whether the respondent is entitled to the deduction under section 32A for plant and machinery in the hatchery division. The court referred to CIT v. Sri Venkateswara Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. [1988] 174 ITR 231, which concluded that the production of chicks using plant and machinery qualifies as the production of "articles or things" under section 32A. The Revenue's contention, based on CIT v. N. C. Budharaja and Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412, that chicks are not "articles or things" was rejected. The court reaffirmed that chicks, being movable and marketable, fall within the scope of section 32A, answering the third question against the Revenue.
4. Classification as an Industrial Company:
The fourth issue depends on the resolution of the third issue. Since the court affirmed that the production of chicks qualifies under section 32A, it followed that the respondent is an industrial company. This conclusion aligns with the precedent set in Sri Venkateswara Hatcheries' case [1988] 174 ITR 231 (AP), which held that an entity engaged in producing articles is an industrial company under the Finance Acts of 1977 and 1979. Therefore, the fourth question was answered against the Revenue.
Conclusion:
The court answered all four questions against the Revenue and in favor of the assessee, affirming the Tribunal's decisions on each issue. The referred case was disposed of with no costs.
-
1995 (11) TMI 6
Assessee owns a sugar mill and a farm attached to it in what was then the East Paksitan. At the relevant time there were restrictions upon remittances from Pakistan to India. The books of the assessee for the said year showed a profit of Rs. 93,449, after making provision for taxation in India and Pakistan - Indian income was not sufficient to declare dividends - provision of section 23A could be applied the assessee
-
1995 (11) TMI 5
Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that the sum transferred to the contingencies reserve account is not allowable as a deduction in arriving at the taxable business income of the assessee-company - held that amount appropriated to the contingencies reserve is set apart to meet possible exigencies, hence iIt is not a provision for known, existing liabilities.
....
|
9911796707
