|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 382 Records
-
1990 (11) TMI 22 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... annot be ascertained unless he has come to a finding that there has been underestimate of advance tax. If he does not record a finding at the time of regular assessment, the assessee will not get the opportunity to assail the, order if he is aggrieved by it. A non-speaking order under section 216 is invalid and is liable to be quashed. In such a case, the Tribunal should not give a further opportunity to the Income-tax Officer to make good the lacuna. The Tribunal can decide the question whether, on the materials on record, there was any underestimate by the assessee within the meaning of section 216. But, if it fails to do so, it cannot remand the matter to the Income-tax Officer. The principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions will govern the instant case. For the reasons aforesaid, the question in this reference be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1990 (11) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... plemental to the principal agreement and it was the intention of the parties to renew the agreement of 1964 for five years. It was also provided that the agreement of 1964 shall be deemed to have been extended for a further period of five years with, effect from December 23, 1977. In the light of the intention expressed in those clauses, we have no doubt in our mind that the parties never intended to rescind the original contract, but only wanted to continue by supplementing the agreement of 1964. For the reasons aforesaid, we are unable to accept the contention of Dr. Pal and we are of the view that the agreement of December 19, 1978, is not a separate or a new agreement but a continuation or extension of the agreement dated March 12, 1964. For the reasons aforesaid, the question is answered by saying that the agreement dated December 19, 1978, is not a separate agreement and it was only extension of the agreement dated March 12, 1964. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J. - I agree.
-
1990 (11) TMI 20 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Notice, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... the relevant point of time, he did not have the contracting capacity to bring about an equitable mortgage by deposit of title deeds by exhibit R-2(a). As already stated, we are not satisfied with the materials produced before the court that the document was deposited towards the tax dues of the appellant s father or that the document was appropriated as security towards the dues of the appellant s father. In these circumstances, we have no hesitation in taking the view that the Department had rightly accepted the deposit of title deeds as security for the dues of the appellant, particularly when it is not the case of the Department that the tax dues of the appellant are not in arrears. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed, the judgment of the learned single judge is set aside and the respondents are directed to return to the appellant the sale deed deposited as incorporated in exhibit R-2(a), within a month from the date of receipt of this judgment. No costs.
-
1990 (11) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Additional Corporation Tax, Business Expenditure, Rates And Taxes ... ... ... ... ..... arises regarding the manner and method of the assessment made under the relevant Act. There was also some confusion as regard the nature of the notice, viz., whether it was a show cause or a notice for final assessment upon hearing the objections which is usually communicated to the assessee by the corporation after hearing the objections by a postcard commonly known as the red card. It is only the year in which such red card was received by the assessee although the revised assessment might have been made earlier which would be the crucial factor in determining the question whether the allowance will be allowed in the year under reference or not. The Tribunal found that the demand notices upon revision of assessment were received by the assessee during the previous year in question. For the aforesaid reasons, the question in this reference is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1990 (11) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Deduction U/S 36(1)(viii), Financial Corporation ... ... ... ... ..... the construction of section 36(1)(viii) was not the intention of Parliament and any qualification should be added, it could easily have said so. It would have been simpler to give express effect to it. That was not done which only confirms the view that it was the intention of Parliament that deduction should be made on the total income as computed before allowing the deduction under section 36(1)(viii). We do not agree that the finding of the implications is an improper technique in interpretation. Willes J., said that the legal meaning of an enactment includes what is necessarily or properly implied by the language used (Chorlton v. Lings 1868 LR 4 CP 374 at page 387). (emphasis added). For the foregoing reasons, with respect, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the Karnataka High Court. The question in this reference is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1990 (11) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Failure To Disclose Material Facts, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... sclose fully and truly all material facts was missing in the case. In any event, the link was too tenuous to provide a legally sound basis for reopening the assessment. The majority of the learned judges in the High Court, in our opinion, were not in error in holding that the said material could not have led to the formation of the belief that the income of the assessee-respondent had escaped assessment because of his failure or omission to disclose fully and truly all material facts. In our view, the Tribunal was justified on the facts and circumstances of the case to hold that there was no live link or close nexus between the materials before the Income-tax Officer and the belief which he formed in initiating the proceedings under section 147(a) of the Act. For the reasons aforesaid, all the questions in this reference are answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1990 (11) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Work In Progress, Equipment Used In Deep Sea Fishing, Export Market Development Allowance, Investment Allowance, New Industrial Undertaking, Special Deduction, Weighted Deduction
-
1990 (11) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Failure To Deposit In Time, Offence, Tax Deducted At Source ... ... ... ... ..... ntrepreneurs was to have a ready source of supply of components which the assessee itself might have found it convenient to manufacture and which it preferred the ancillary units to manufacture for it, and the leasing out of the premises in the industrial estate, therefore, was incidental to and for the purpose of the assessee s business of manufacture of various machines. It was, therefore, held that the income by leasing out the premises was part of its income from business. This conclusion of the Tribunal was upheld by the Karnataka High Court. All the aforesaid decisions clearly support the case of the assessee- company. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of these cases and the principles laid down in the aforesaid decisions, we are of the view that the Tribunal came to a correct conclusion. We, therefore, answer all the three questions in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. K. M. YUSUF J.-I agree.
-
1990 (11) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Precedents ... ... ... ... ..... preciate that the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) was clearly applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. The burden was on the assessee to show that the difference between the returned income and the assessed income did not arise from any fraud or gross or wilful neglect on its part. It is unfortunate that nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee in this case either before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner or before the Tribunal. We, therefore, decline to answer the question and remand this matter to the Tribunal with a direction that the Tribunal should rehear the appeal after serving another notice upon the Official Receiver and/ or the assessee, as the case may be. The Tribunal will decide this appeal afresh in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Chuharmal s case 1988 172 ITR 250 and in Mussadilal Ram Bharose s case 1987 165 ITR 14 referred to hereinabove. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1990 (11) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, HUF, Litigation Expenditure, Partition ... ... ... ... ..... ment year 1978-79, the assessment was being made on the income or loss coming out of the assets allotted on June 12, 1977, to the karta of the assessee-Hindu undivided family which are treated as assets of the assessee-Hindu undivided family. Any expenditure incurred on litigation by the karta in connection with the partition suit concerning the aforesaid assets, prior to June 12, 1977, cannot, therefore, be allowed as expenditure relating to preservation or protection of the business assets of the assessee-Hindu undivided family. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer this question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue by saying that any expenditure incurred by the assessee-Hindu undivided family in respect of the assets allotted to the karta of the Hindu undivided family after June 12, 1977, and treated as business assets of the assessee-Hindu undivided family will only be allowable as deduction. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1990 (11) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Failure To Disclose Fully And Truly, Limitation, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... e-tax Officer has jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under section 147 to assess it as the income of another year without any limitation applying to the issue of the notice under section 148 or to the completion of the assessment or reassessment. In any event, the question whether the assessee disclosed fully and truly all material facts necessary for its assessment is essentially a question of fact. None of the findings or primary facts found by the Tribunal have been disputed by the assessee by any appropriate question. The perversity, if any, of the finding has not been challenged. On the contrary, in this case, the assessee obtained a benefit and, after obtaining the benefit, has contended that the said proceedings are not valid. We agree with the reasoning and conclusions of the Tribunal and, accordingly, answer both the questions in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1990 (11) TMI 11 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income, Tea Estate ... ... ... ... ..... mage done by hailstorm to the growing crop only and that crop represented agricultural operations. Therefore, any sum which represents profits of agricultural operations must be considered to be income from agricultural operations. In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that the sum received from the insurance company represented nothing but agricultural income and as such exempt under section 4(3)(viii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. In our opinion, the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision will apply to the facts of this case. The entire receipt under the insurance policy for damage caused by the hailstorm to the growing tea leaves will be assessable as agricultural income and no part of the said income can be apportioned under rule 8 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer this question in the reference in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1990 (11) TMI 10 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration, Sub-Partnership ... ... ... ... ..... alid partnership, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Murlidhar Himatsingka v. CIT 1966 62 ITR 323 and CIT v. Sivakasi Match Exporting Co. 1964 53 ITR 204. The finding regarding the genuineness of the firm is a finding of fact which was arrived at by the Tribunal after considering the complete record of the case. This court is not expected to set aside the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal and add its own findings. The Tribunal also, while giving the finding regarding the genuineness of the firm, gave the finding that the conditions necessary for registration are also satisfied and the firm is entitled to registration. In this view of the matter, taking the finding of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the assessee-firm is entitled to registration. Consequently, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, by holding that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to registration.
-
1990 (11) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Double Taxation Relief
... ... ... ... ..... ent in Greece is raised in question No. 5. The Tribunal, while referring the question has categorically observed that questions Nos. 2 and 5 should be taken to have been included in the question above referred. Therefore, the question about the residence of the company in Greece is included in the questions which are being referred to the High Court. Once it is held that the assessee-company is resident in Greece in terms of article II(1)(f) of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation, the assessee is entitled to the benefit provided under article VI of the said agreement. In other words, the assessee, in terms of article VI of the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation, will be charged to tax in India by way of reduction of an amount equal to 50 of the tax so charged. For the reasons aforesaid, the question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessees. There will be no order as to costs. BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE J.-I agree.
-
1990 (11) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the income arising from the assets transferred by the assessee to the trusts for the benefit of (a) Smt. Mazharunnisa Begum, (b) Smt. Laila Begum, and (c) Smt. Jani Begum and (ii) the minor sons born of Smt. Laila Begum and Smt. Jani Begum, was income arising to 'spouse' and 'minor child' within the meaning of section 16(3)(b) - High Court was justified in answering the question referred to it in favour of the assessee - appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed
-
1990 (11) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
Mohan Lal Daulat Ram and his son, Sevanti Lal, were partners under a deed of partnership in their individual capacity - on death of father, partners of the firm were Sevanti Lal and his mother - whether this was a valid partnership - Held, yes - hence entitled to registration
-
1990 (11) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the profits earned outside the taxable territories and brought into the taxable territories during the chargeable accounting period ending on March 31, 1947, were assessable under the Business Profits Tax Act - Whether the entire remittance could to have arisen out of income which had accrued or arisen in the native states during the accounting year or whether portion relates to business profits for Income-Tax purpose
-
1990 (11) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Charitable Purpose - Whether the income derived by the assessee from its General Fund and South Indian Women Workers Executive Committee Fund is entitled to exemption under section 11 - Whether, the income from the purchase and sale of handicrafts, without setting up educational institutions or training centres for advancement of studies would constitute charitable purpose and would, as such, qualify for exemption
-
1990 (11) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Amnesty Scheme - appellant is seeking is that his application under section 273A read with the Amnesty Scheme should be considered and disposed of by the Commissioner - CIT was not justified in not considering the petition on the ground that criminal proceedings have been subsequently launched - it will be open to the appellant to request the Commissioner to hold up the prosecution pending the disposal of the application
-
1990 (11) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Dividends - Whether, any amount was includible in the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1957-58 by way of dividend by reference to the value of the shares of the cement company received by it from sugar companies - High Court committed a clear error in holding that the amount in question is includible - reference is answered in favour of the assessee
....
|
