|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 408 Records
-
1996 (4) TMI 69 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessed Income, Income Returned, Returned Income Less Than 80 Per Cent ... ... ... ... ..... with the consequence that the procedure prescribed under section 144B and extended time-limit provided in the Explanation to section 153 is not available to reassessment to be made under section 147. A similar question came up for consideration before this court in T. C. Nos. 573 to 575 of 1983 in the case of Sundaram Spinning Mills, Madras Aluminium Co. Ltd., and Gordhandas Bhagwandas 1997 225 ITR 214, wherein by judgment dated April 23, 1996, this court held that the assessment made under section 143 and the assessment made under section 147 of the Income-tax Act are two different assessments and they are not one and the same. When the assessment is made in pursuance of an order under section 144B, the extended time-limit as contemplated under section 153 would not be available in making the assessment under section 147. In view of the earlier decisions of this court cited supra, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (4) TMI 68 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Minor Admitted To Benefits Of Partnership, Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... oes not cover reassessment and this expression is confined only to the assessments to be made originally and, therefore, the procedure prescribed under section 144B is not available to reassessments to be made under section 147. Consequently, the extended time limit provided for in Explanation 1 to section 153 is not available to the Department. Unless the extended time limit is available, the assessment cannot be saved from the bar of limitation. On the facts of these cases, we are also of the opinion that the Tribunal is correct in holding that the reassessments made are time barred, as section 144B is not applicable to the facts of this case. Accordingly, we hold that the common order passed by the Tribunal in dismissing the appeals filed by the Department in the case of all the assessees herein is in order. In that view of the matter, we answer the common question referred to us in the case of each of the assessees in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (4) TMI 67 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Attributable To, Interest Income ... ... ... ... ..... d and they were looking after the administration of the trusts during the assessment years under consideration. We have already held that clause 22 of the abovesaid two trusts would not come into operation during the assessment years under consideration, but the said clause would come into force only after 20 years as stated therein. In view of the abovesaid factual position, the contribution made by the mother of the minor children to the trusts would be considered as gifts made by her to the trusts with no power of revocation. Therefore, we consider that the Tribunal was correct in holding that the income arising from the transferred assets in favour of the trusts cannot be assessed to tax in the hands of the assessee. In that view of the matter, we answer the first question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. In so far as question No. 2 is concerned, it does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, no answer is provided. No costs.
-
1996 (4) TMI 66 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Revocable Transfer, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... ettlement and not till then. During the operation of the settlement that clause will not come into force and during the operation of the settlement, the properties stand completely in the hands of the trustees and during that period the settlor, the assessee, cannot either directly or indirectly enjoy either the whole or any part of the income or exercise any right of reassumption of power over the income or assets. Therefore, a plain reading of section 63 along with the trust deed dated December 6, 1971, would go to show that the trusts in question are not revocable trusts. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the Commissioner of Income-tax was not justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to include in the assessment of the assessee the income arising to the trusts of M. C. Shyamala Marriage Benefit Trust and M. S. Sowmiyaram Marriage Benefit Trust. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (4) TMI 65 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... tion. At the time of hearing of this original petition, learned senior counsel for the Department submitted before us that this court in O. P. Nos. 13682, 15676 and 15679 of 1992 by judgment dated October 6, 1994, directed reference of the very same question for consideration in the case of the assessee for the earlier assessment years. In view of the fact that this court has referred the very same question in the case of the assessee arising under the very same circumstances, we are of the view that the question sought to be referred at the instance of the Department arises out of the appellate order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal and we accordingly direct the Tribunal to state a case and refer the question specified in paragraph 1 of the judgment for decision by this court. Communicate a copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for information and compliance.
-
1996 (4) TMI 64 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Articles Or Things, Investment Allowance, Manufacture Or Production, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... erised as manufacture or production of an article within the meaning of the Act. The Tribunal, therefore, committed an error in allowing the benefit of deduction under sections 80HHA and 80J of the Act and also erred in granting investment allowance under section 32A of the Act. It is settled law that construction of buildings, roads and dams, etc., does not amount to manufacture or production of articles or things as envisaged under the Act. The aforesaid decision, as fairly and frankly submitted by counsel for the non-applicant, concludes the matter against the assessee. In the result, we answer both the questions in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. This miscellaneous civil case is disposed of in terms indicated above, but without any orders as to costs. Counsel fee for each side is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Tribunal for further action as may be necessary under the law.
-
1996 (4) TMI 63 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Computation Of Capital ... ... ... ... ..... f the Act. In the present case, the return was filed by the assessee on March 31, 1983, though it was belated, along with the declaration in Form No. 12. Therefore, as per the circular, if any return has been filed along with the declaration and ex parte assessment has not been made by the Revenue, then as per the circular, belated filing of the declaration under section 184(7) will be deemed to be sufficient compliance with the provision. The circular was not brought to the notice of any of the authorities below. It was brought to the notice of the Tribunal for the first time when the reference application was made before the Tribunal. Since the necessary foundation is already there and as per the circular, belated filing of declaration in Form No. 12 would not visit the assessee with any adverse affect as that would be deemed to be sufficient compliance with the provision. In this view of the matter, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1996 (4) TMI 62 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Passing Of Property, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... ed. The Tribunal also pointed out that there was no material to support that the deceased was having the profits mentioned in the accounts of the firm which were found out six years after his death. Therefore, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in excluding the sum of Rs. 3,09,933 from the principal value of the estate. Inasmuch as several years had elapsed and the Estate Duty Act was repealed and no evidence was produced by the Department to show that the undisclosed income shown in the firm s account books were available in the hands of the deceased at the time of his death, the remittal of this appeal would render no assistance either to the Department or to the assessee. In that view of the matter, we are unable to remit back this matter as requested by learned senior standing counsel appearing for the Department. In that view of the matter, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (4) TMI 61 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Amnesty Scheme, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... have, however, in consultation with learned counsel for the parties reshaped the questions as follows 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was illegal ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the returns filed by the assessee were under the Amnesty Scheme ? Accordingly, the applications under section 256(2) are allowed and the Tribunal is directed to state the case and refer the questions as noted in the preceding paragraph for the opinion of this court. However, no order is made as to costs. Counsel s fee is allowed at Rs. 750 for each side, in each case, if certified. This order be retained in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 216 of 1993 and copies be filed in Miscellaneous Civil Cases Nos. 217 of 1993, 218 of 1993 and 219 of 1993. A copy in each case be transmitted to the Tribunal also.
-
1996 (4) TMI 60 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question Of Law, Revised Returns ... ... ... ... ..... ined to state the case and observed that the facts were examined and the conclusion was reached that there was no concealment of income. Indisputably, the assessee had voluntarily surrendered by way of revised return before any concealment as such could be detected. The Tribunal found that the conclusion was based on appreciation of facts which gave rise to no question of law. We find that the aforesaid approach is correct and the order is sound. The conclusion is one of appreciation of facts. The revised return was submitted voluntarily. No case of conscious concealment is visible. In view of the aforesaid position, the Tribunal committed no error in deleting the penalty. We are thus satisfied with the correctness of the order passed by the Tribunal and conclude that the question does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. In the result, we dismiss this application but without any order as to costs. Counsel fee is, however, fixed as Rs. 750 for each side, if certified.
-
1996 (4) TMI 59 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... his as a device to avoid payment of its dues towards tax to the Revenue. The assessee increased the price of Rs. 20 per quintal. Out of this, a sum of Rs. 18 was capitalised without agreement with the cane growers and only a sum of Rs. 2 per quintal was paid to the cane growers in cash. The increase of Rs. 20 per quintal was held to be absolutely disproportionate and unreasonable and the assessee employed this as a device to enhance the capital without paying the tax which was due to the exchequer. It was noted that in the subsequent years 1992-93 and 1993-94, the purchase price paid was much less than Rs. 60 and Rs. 56 per quintal. In the ultimate, the Tribunal concluded that the assessee by employing this device of increasing the sugarcane price which is not a bona fide transaction has deprived the Revenue of its dues and has, therefore, indulged in tax avoidance. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are findings of fact and no referable question of law arises. Dismissed.
-
1996 (4) TMI 58 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Retrospective Effect ... ... ... ... ..... 2 and thus Explanation 2 does not affect the prospective applicability of the first proviso, else the Legislature would have said so. In the ultimate analysis, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in Sanghi Motors v. Union of India 1991 187 ITR 703 and Escorts Ltd. v. Union of India 1991 189 ITR 81, and with great respect differ from the view expressed by the Patna High Court in Jamshedpur Motor Accessories 1991 189 ITR 70 and by the High Courts of Gujarat, Orissa and Rajasthan. In this view of the matter, we find that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal did not correctly construe section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the deduction claimed had been rightly disallowed by the Income-tax Officer on the ground that the amount of sales tax fallen due in the accounting year had not been actually paid in the said year. The reference is, thus, answered by us in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
1996 (4) TMI 57 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Assessment Order ... ... ... ... ..... which again was not challenged by the Revenue. Therefore, there was no question of any variation of income of more than Rs. 1 lakh. The whole foundation of the argument of Mr. Rastogi, therefore, fails as the provisions of section 144B of the Act became inapplicable. Moreover, the order of the Income-tax Officer got merged with the appellate order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). It could not be disputed that at that stage the provisions of section 263 of the Act became inapplicable as the Commissioner of Income-tax can exercise his powers under section 263 of the Act only if he considers that any order passed by the Income-tax Officer was erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. In the present case, the order is of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In this view of the matter, we answer all the three questions in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (4) TMI 56 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Expenditure On Renovation, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... off in the books of the assessee. Explanation. --- For the purposes of this clause,--- (i) moneys payable , in respect of any structure or work, includes--- (a) any insurance or compensation moneys payable in respect thereof (b) where the structure or work is sold, the price for which it is sold and (ii) sold shall have the meaning assigned to it in the Explanation to clause (iii) of sub-section (1). On the basis of the aforesaid provision it was sought to be argued by the Revenue that the amount of Rs. 42,000 would be capital expenditure. Since there is no finding of fact that the assessee had incurred any capital expenditure by way of renovation, we hold that section 32(1A) would not be applicable in the present case. Our attention has also been drawn to the decision of the Delhi High Court (78 ITR 200) (sic) though the same relates to section 30(a)(ii). Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (4) TMI 55 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Computation Of Capital ... ... ... ... ..... le for dividend, be transferred to a reserve fund, to be called the capital redemption reserve account , a sum equal to the nominal amount of the shares redeemed and the provisions of the said Act relating to the reduction of share capital shall apply in that behalf. This provision also gives an indication that capital redemption reserve partakes of the nature of share capital. Hence, capital redemption reserve should be taken into account while determining the capital base of the company for purposes of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. In view of the above cited decisions, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in holding that the amount representing preference share redemption reserve at the beginning of the accounting period should be included as part of the capital base under the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (4) TMI 54 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Applied To, Law Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... 3B is held to be retrospective. No new ground is urged to persuade us to take a different view in the matter. We have perused the statement of the case and considered the question as presented and projected. We conclude, that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Assessing Officer to allow the deduction if the sales tax payment had been made before furnishing the return of income under section 139(1) even when the proviso was effective from April 1, 1988, and that for the earlier years, the benefit of the proviso, procedural in nature, was clearly available to the assessee. The Tribunal has committed no error in dismissing the appeal of the Department. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. We, however, make no orders as to costs. Counsel fee for each side is fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Tribunal.
-
1996 (4) TMI 53 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... The Explanation cannot be interpreted to include the freight charge paid as entitled for deduction under section 35B. This matter was considered by this court in the case of Associated Stone Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1994 210 ITR 821, wherein the dispute was with regard to freight and packing charges and it was held that they fell within the exclusive sub-clause (iii) of section 35B(1)(b), namely, on the carriage of such goods of their destination outside India and, therefore, no weighted deduction in respect of packing charges and freight was allowable. In view of the provisions of section 35B(1)(b)(iii) read with the Explanation 2, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim weighted deduction of Rs. 8,29,518 being export expenses and Rs. 7,68,512 being export freight under section 35B of the Income-tax Act. Consequently, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1996 (4) TMI 52 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
AAC And Tribunal, Firm Registration, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... s a working partner. The assessee, he further contended, failed to prove the reasons for his admission. He was, therefore, a benamidar for his father and the firm was not entitled for registration on that count alone. Shri D. D. Vyas further submitted that only question No. 2 may be called which would cover question No. 1 also. Since we propose to call the question, we refrain from expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case lest it may prejudice one party or the other. Accordingly, we allow the application and direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the undernoted question of law for the opinion of this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled for registration ? The petition, therefore, stands disposed of as aforesaid but without any order as to costs. Counsel s fee is, however, allowed at Rs. 750, for each side, if certified. A copy of the order be transmitted to the Tribunal for compliance at the earliest.
-
1996 (4) TMI 51 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
AAC And Tribunal, Firm Registration, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... he United States of America, is not correct. In fact, the Tribunal has not considered as to whether there is any agency on behalf of the donees to act for the purpose of accepting the gifts in the United States of America itself. It remains to be seen that two cheques were sent to the father of the donor with a request to hand over the moneys to the donees and one cheque was sent directly to the father of the assessee for his benefit. In the earlier instances, the father of the donor would act as the agent of the donor in delivering the gifts to the donees. This instance took place within the taxable territory. Therefore, it is not correct on the part of the Tribunal to state that the property gifted was only money in American currency and the delivery of the gifted property took place in America when the assessee obtained the drafts after remitting the money thereto. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (4) TMI 50 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Bona Fide, Question Of Law, Sales Tax Refund ... ... ... ... ..... o existence from the assessment year 1979-80 while before that it was the proprietary concern of Shri Motilal. Therefore, in our view, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) again took the correct view in holding that there could be no charge of concealment against the assessee on this count either. We find no merit in this appeal. As is luculent, the conclusion is based on appreciation of facts. The Tribunal reached a categorical finding that there was no concealment and that the claim for deduction was made in a bona fide manner. It is held in CIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. 1976 103 ITR 543 (SC) and CIT v. Kotrika Venkataswamy and Sons 1971 79 ITR 499 (SC) that an order based on appreciation of facts does not give rise to a referable question of law. The same is the position in the instant case. Accordingly, we find this application devoid of merit and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Counsel fee for each side is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified.
....
|
