Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 365 Records
-
2001 (6) TMI 25 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... rs of the said property because two Hindu undivided families, including that of the assessee, had sold their shares to the remaining two Hindu undivided families, who had continued to remain not only owners of their respective share, but they also had become owners of the shares of the two Hindu undivided families which had disposed of, by way of sale, their shares in favour of the two remaining Hindu undivided families. Thus, the submission of the learned advocate appearing for the assessee is not correct, even if we view the issue from this angle. Looking to the facts stated hereinabove, we are in agreement with the order passed by the Tribunal and, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in upholding the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. In the circumstances, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... following the view taken by the Tribunal in Nippon Steel Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT in I.T.A. Nos. 1087, 1088, 1089 and 1090 (Cal) of 1992, dated November 3, 1995. None appeared for the assessee. Heard learned counsel for the Revenue. Learned counsel for the Revenue submits that the issue is covered by the decision of this court in CIT v. Nippon Yusen Kaisha 1998 233 ITR 158. He further submits that the finding is there that the demurrage income was received in India. Following our view in the case relied on by learned counsel for the Revenue and the fact that the demurrage income has accrued in India and also received in India, in our view, the Tribunal has committed an error by allow ing the claim of the assessee. In the result, we answer the question in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference so made stands disposed of accordingly. All parties are to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this dictated order on the usual undertaking.
-
2001 (6) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... e Code. In N. Lakshmanan v. Tamilnadu Electricity Board 1991 LW Crl. 475, it is pointed out that the very width of power under section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, requires corresponding caution before exercise of the power and the only criterion to exercise this power is that it should appear to the court that the evidence sought to be placed was essential to the just decision of the case. When the above principles of law are applied to the facts of the present case, I feel that the learned magistrate has committed an error in allowing the petition filed by the respondent under section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to enable the prosecution to fill in the lacunae, though the respondent had an opportunity at the time of trial to examine the witnesses. The revision is allowed and the order of the learned magistrate is set aside. The trial court will dispose of the case according to law on the evidence recorded. Consequently, Crl. M. P. No. 7250 of 1998 is closed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... Reddiar (HUF) 1996 222 ITR 765, after considering the said Kerala Act held that it is not permissible for the Income-tax Department to continue to make assessments in the status of the Hindu undivided family in Kerala after the commencement of that Act. In this case, the assessment is not in Kerala, but outside Kerala and in the respect of a person who is very much domiciled outside Kerala. The Tribunal was right in holding that the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975, is inapplicable to the assessee. We answer the question referred to us as to whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that the provisions of the Kerala joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act of 1975, is inapplicable to the facts of the case and that the assessee should be assessed only in the status of a Hindu undivided family for the assessment years 1977-78 to 1983-84, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2001 (6) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... s loss from a separate sub-source of income and eligible for set off against other incomes. The said contention of the assessee was accepted by the Tribunal and as against this, this reference has been made. The learned advocate for the Revenue fairly placed before us the decision in the case of CIT v. Gannon Dunkerley and Co. (P.) Ltd. 2000 243 ITR 646 (Mad), wherein it was held that the expenditure that had been incurred by the official liquidator by way of rent and payment of statutory dues had nexus with the earning of interest and therefore those amounts were deductible and the assessee is entitled to the claim made by it. The principles laid down in the said case are squarely applicable to the case on hand as the assessee spent the amount towards security charges to safeguard its land and factory building. Hence, the Tribunal was correct in coming to the aforementioned conclusion and therefore the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2001 (6) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... tor. This argument is plainly untenable. What hag been declared by the will is three trusts, and any subsequent action of the assessee cannot erase that fact. They may, as a matter of convenience, choose to transfer the assets of two of the trusts to the third, but that does not make the trust to which the assets are so transferred the only trust created by the testator. Counsel relied on the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Trustees of H. E. H. the Nizam s Miscellaneous Trust 19861 160 ITR 270 (Appex.), wherein, it was held that the modification of the direction of the settlor when the trustees act in accordance with the mandatory provisions of the trust deed is permissible. That does not establish the proposition that trustees and beneficiaries can by their overt acts erase the factum of creation of more than one trust by the testator. In the result, the questions referred to us are answered in favour of the Revenue, and against the assessee.
-
2001 (6) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... of the relevant assessment year. The fact that some of the activities in relation to which the claim was made had been undertaken in earlier years does not come in the way of such claim being made. It is the duty of the Assessing Officer to apply the law as it stood in the year of assessment and it is not open to the Revenue to deem a repealed figure for an earlier assessment year as deeming to remain in the statute book in respect of the assessments in which the activity in relation to which the claim has been made had been undertaken in earlier years. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in the view it took and the question referred to us Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled for the claim for deduction under section 33A(7), proviso (ii), of the Act as amended with effect from April 1, 1982, at the rate of Rs.35,000 per hectare is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2001 (6) TMI 18 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... e answer the first two questions referred to this court in the affirmative, i.e, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. So far as the third question is concerned, it pertains to the benefit under section 80J of the Act in respect of additional investment made by the assessee during the assessment year. The learned advocate, Mr. Nayak, has fairly submitted that so far as the third question is concerned it has been concluded in favour of the assessee. This court, in the case of CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. 1976 104 ITR 510, has decided that the assessee in such a case is eligible to claim benefit under the provisions of section 80J of the Act. The said view has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Elecon Engineering Co. Ltd. 1987 167 ITR 639. In the circumstances, the third question is also answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 17 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... le by way of advance tax, in our opinion, the Tribunal was absolutely right in holding that the tax paid by the contractor in its own case, by way of advance tax and self-assessment tax, should be deducted from the gross tax that the assessee should have deducted under section 194C of the Act while computing interest chargeable under section 201(1A) of the Act. If the Revenue is permitted to levy interest under the provisions of section 201(1A) of the Act, even in a case where the person liable to pay the tax has paid the tax on the date due for the payment of the tax, the Revenue would derive undue benefit or advantage by getting interest on the amount of tax which had already been paid on the due date. Such a position, in our opinion, cannot be permitted. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is thus answered accordingly and is disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... issioner (Appeals). As to whether the amount that had been allowed was the proper amount was not an issue before the Commissioner. The assessee merely wanted an additional amount to be allowed. The enquiry into that ground did not require any investigation as to the correctness or otherwise of the amount of development rebate that had been allowed on the assumption that the machinery had been installed and the production had commenced before June 30, 1975. The Tribunal has held that there was no merger and we are in agreement with that view of the Tribunal. In the result, we find that the Tribunal was right in the manner in which it dealt with the appeal and in holding that there was no merger and that there had been prejudice to the interests of the Revenue by reason of the order of the Income-tax Officer warranting exercise of the power by the Commissioner under section 263 of the Income-tax Act. The questions are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2001 (6) TMI 15 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ffect that there is no past history of the assessee to show that the assessee had been earning business income outside the books, nor is there in the books relating to the year under consideration any instance pointed out indicating any transaction outside the books. In light of the aforesaid findings of fact, it is not possible for this court to take any other view of the matter in the light of the settled legal position, We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was justified in law, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, in holding that the penalty of Rs.30,000 imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(c) of the Act could not be sustained. We have borne in mind the ratio of decisions cited on behalf of the Revenue while arriving at the aforesaid decision. The question referred to us is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
2001 (6) TMI 14 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... re the court should set aside the impugned order and remand the proceedings to the first respondent with a direction to dispose of the application of the petitioner dated April 28, 1992, afresh on consideration of the case of the petitioner as set out in the application and the supporting materials produced by it. In the result, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned order. The proceedings shall stand remitted to the first respondent with a direction to dispose of the petition dated April 28, 1992, filed under section 220(2A) of the Act afresh in accordance with law and in the light of this order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till then, the income-tax authorities are directed not take any coercive steps, and the interest paid by the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings before the income-tax authorities and this court shall abide by the decision of the Commissioner to be made in pursuance of this order.
-
2001 (6) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... en received, it cannot be said that the condition was not complied with. In my opinion, all these materials cannot be agitated before this court at this stage. To put it briefly, on the available materials before this court, I am not able to persuade myself to accept that the immunity in question would apply to the present complaint and even if such an immunity is in respect of the present complaint, the Settlement Commission has no jurisdiction to grant such an immunity, in view of the factual situation referred to above and in the light of the observation made by the Supreme Court indicated above. Ultimately, these questions can be decided by the trial court on the basis of the materials placed by both the parties before it during the course of trial uninfluenced in any way by the observations made above. With the above observations, the petitions for quashing are dismissed. Consequently, Crl. M. P. Nos. 6219 of 1998, 3708 of 2000 and 824 and 825 of 2001 are also dismissed.
-
2001 (6) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... venue to reopen the assessment and, incorporate the price at which the property was subsequently sold as the value of the property for the earlier assessment year was rightly negatived by the Tribunal. The correctness of that decision has been called into question by the Revenue in this reference. We do not see any error in the order of the Tribunal. The fact that the property fetched a higher value when it was sold some years after the assessment for the wealth-tax had been made, is no reason at all to reopen the concluded assessment, and to substitute a price which was secured years later, as the value of the property in the earlier period. The wealth-tax is payable on the net wealth for the relevant assessment year, and that net wealth cannot be regarded as having been much more only because several years after the assessment, the property when sold fetched a higher price. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee, and against the Revenue.
-
2001 (6) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... Textiles Ltd. 1999 240 ITR 908, wherein, an identical question was considered by this court and the answer was given by this court against the Revenue, and in favour of the assessee. The question referred to is answered in favour of the assessee.
-
2001 (6) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... period the silverware held by the assessee as stock-in-trade was assessable. In fact the said view is strengthened by the decision of this court in the case of CWT v. Varadharaj a Theatres P. Ltd. 2001 250 ITR 523, wherein it was held that the business assets even such as cinema building were includible in the net wealth of the assessee. The principles laid down in the above decision are applicable to the case on hand and, therefore, we answer the question in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2001 (6) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ould be taken note of for working out the value of the shares and not the subsequent balance-sheets finalised after the valuation date. The assessee is no more. It is, however, unnecessary to issue notice to the legal representatives even though an application to bring them on record has been filed as the result of this petition being in favour of the assessee, it is not necessary to postpone the disposal of these cases and, therefore, these cases are disposed of by this order. The question is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2001 (6) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... asing of earth-moving equipment. The fact that such earth-moving equipment was utilised in industrial activity was not in dispute. As held by the apex court, it is not necessary in order to claim this allowance, that the assessee himself should be engaged in the manufacture. The fact that the machinery owned by the assessee is leased to manufacturers and used for manufacture is sufficient. The reference is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2001 (6) TMI 7 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... has not been considered on that line. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal requires reconsideration whether the amount of Rs.41,54,000 formed part of the peak cash credit. We are in advisory capacity and the Tribunal is the final fact-finding body. On these facts we deem it proper to give liberty to the assessee to make miscellaneous application to the Tribunal to reconsider its finding whether the amount of Rs.41,54,000 formed part of the peak cash credit that is the amount of Rs.1,08,13,090. The assessee is directed to file a miscellaneous application before the Tribunal to reconsider their finding of fact whether Rs.41,54,000 formed part of the peak cash credit that is Rs.1,08,13,090 and in case the assessee submits the miscellaneous application within 10 days from this order, the Tribunal shall dispose of his application within two months from the date of filing of the miscellaneous application. The miscellaneous application stands disposed of with the above directions.
-
2001 (6) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... a question of fact. The Commissioner, as also the Tribunal have as a matter of fact found that the expenditure incurred by the assessee on the purchase of gripe-water was neither excessive nor unreasonable having regard to the fair market value of the goods for which the payment was made by the assessee. It is not the province of this court to reappraise all the facts which had been thoroughly examined by the Commissioner and the Tribunal who have, after such examination formed their opinion based on the facts as ascertained by them. The facts as found by them do warrant the conclusion that they reached. The question referred to us, viz., Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal had valid materials to hold that the provisions of section 40A(2)(a) could not apply in regard to the purchase made from Tamil Nadu Printers (P.) Limited and deleting the addition of Rs.5,80,580? is answered in favour of the assessee, and against the Revenue.
....
|