|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 480 Records
-
1998 (11) TMI 120
Issues involved:
The petitioner sought to quash the intimation u/s 143(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and prevent any orders based on it.
Judgment Details:
Issue 1: Jurisdiction of Assessing Officer
The petitioner filed an income-tax return for the assessment year 1989-90, showing a loss. Subsequently, a revised return was filed. Despite a notice u/s 145(2) and ongoing assessment proceedings u/s 143(3), an intimation u/s 143(1)(a) was issued. The petitioner contended that once a notice u/s 143(2) is issued, the Assessing Officer cannot issue an intimation u/s 143(1)(a). The court agreed with this argument, citing relevant case laws and the provisions of the Act.
Issue 2: Legal Interpretation
The court referred to case laws such as Modern Fibotex India Ltd. v. Deputy CIT and Gujarat Poly-AVX Electronics Ltd. v. Deputy CIT, emphasizing that assessment should be completed u/s 143(3) after a notice u/s 143(2), not u/s 143(1). The petitioner's counsel argued that the intimation u/s 143(1)(a) issued after the notice u/s 143(2) should be quashed, which was accepted by the court.
Final Decision:
The court quashed the intimation u/s 143(1)(a) issued after the notice u/s 143(2) and allowed the completed assessment u/s 143(3) to be communicated to the petitioner for further action. The petition was disposed of accordingly, with directions for communication of the assessment order to the assessee.
-
1998 (11) TMI 119
Issues:
1. Valuation of assets for calculating depreciation.
2. Treatment of profit on sale of flats for calculating business income.
3. Classification of surplus on sale of showrooms as capital gains or business profits.
4. Determination of showrooms as part of stock-in-trade.
Issue 1: Valuation of assets for calculating depreciation
The case involved a partnership firm engaged in constructing a commercial building. The dispute arose regarding the valuation of assets for calculating depreciation for assessment years 1982-83 to 1986-87. The Revenue sought a mandamus for the Tribunal to refer questions to the High Court regarding the correct valuation of assets on the date of dissolution of the old firm. The Tribunal had directed to consider the value of assets on the date of dissolution for depreciation calculation. The Assessing Officer argued that the valuation at dissolution was merely an adjustment entry. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) held that the value in the existing firm's books should be considered. The Tribunal treated the surplus on the sale of showrooms as capital gains, leading to the Revenue's appeal for reference under section 256(1) of the Act, which was rejected.
Issue 2: Treatment of profit on sale of flats for calculating business income
The controversy extended to the treatment of profit on the sale of flats. The Assessing Officer considered the showrooms sold as stock-in-trade and used the written down value from the old firm's books to calculate business income. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disagreed, stating that the value in the existing firm's books should be used. The Tribunal ultimately classified the surplus on the sale of showrooms as capital gains, contrary to the Revenue's contention of it being business income.
Issue 3: Classification of surplus on sale of showrooms
The core issue was whether the surplus on the sale of showrooms should be classified as capital gains or business profits for the assessment year 1982-83. The Tribunal's decision to treat it as capital gains sparked the Revenue's pursuit for reference to the High Court, which was initially rejected. The disagreement stemmed from the Assessing Officer's view that the showrooms were part of the stock-in-trade, while the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal differed in their classification.
Issue 4: Determination of showrooms as part of stock-in-trade
The final issue revolved around whether the showrooms sold were considered part of the stock-in-trade for the assessment year 1982-83. The Assessing Officer's stance was that the showrooms constituted stock-in-trade, leading to the use of written down value from the old firm's books for business income calculation. The subsequent appeals and Tribunal's decision altered the classification to capital gains, prompting the Revenue's plea for reference to the High Court, which was eventually allowed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 118
Issues involved:
The petitioner asserted a right to be dishonest in his application to the Settlement Commission, seeking settlement for assessment years 1976-77 to 1986-87. The Commission rejected the application on the grounds of inadequate disclosure of income, leading to a legal challenge.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1 - Disclosure of Income:
The petitioner claimed that the investment in his factory for synthetic gems was sourced from agricultural and dairy income, but the Assessing Officer found over Rs. 50 lakhs unexplained. The petitioner offered to settle by paying tax on Rs. 30 lakhs, subject to specific conditions, which the Commission rejected due to insufficient disclosure.
Issue 2 - Settlement Commission's Authority:
The petitioner argued that the Commission acted illegally by rejecting the application, contending that rejection should only occur for non-cooperation or complex investigations. However, the court held that full and true disclosure is a prerequisite for approaching the Commission, emphasizing that dishonest conduct cannot be continued while seeking benefits from the Commission.
Issue 3 - Legal Provisions:
Sections 245C(1) and 245D of the Income-tax Act mandate full and true disclosure for settlement applications. The Settlement Commission has the discretion to allow or reject applications based on the nature and circumstances of the case. In this case, the Commission's rejection was deemed valid due to the petitioner's failure to disclose adequately.
Conclusion:
The court upheld the Commission's decision, stating that the rejection was justified given the lack of full disclosure by the petitioner. The writ petition was dismissed, and costs were imposed. The judgment highlights the importance of honesty and compliance with legal requirements in seeking settlements before the Settlement Commission.
-
1998 (11) TMI 117
Issues involved: Interpretation of deduction under section 80M of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for a private limited company dealing in shares.
Summary:
The High Court of Bombay was presented with a reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the entitlement of an assessee to deduction under section 80M on a specific amount for the assessment year 1968-69. The controversy revolved around the deduction of interest on money borrowed for purchasing shares from the dividend income for the purpose of calculating deduction under section 80M(1) of the Act. The Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had differing views on the treatment of interest on borrowed funds for purchasing shares in relation to the deduction under section 80M. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) followed a decision of the Gujarat High Court in a similar matter. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, leading to the reference to the High Court.
Upon hearing arguments from both sides, the High Court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 120, which clarified that deduction under section 80M(1) should be calculated based on the amount of dividend computed after deducting interest on borrowed funds, not on the full amount of dividend received. The Court noted that the Supreme Court had overruled its earlier decision in Cloth Traders P. Ltd. v. Addl. CIT [1979] 118 ITR 243, which had a different interpretation. Additionally, the Court considered a decision of the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. [1993] 202 ITR 559, which was found to be inconsistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in Distributors (Baroda) P. Ltd. v. Union of India [1985] 155 ITR 120.
In conclusion, the High Court held that deduction under section 80M(1) should be calculated based on the dividend income computed in accordance with the Act, after deducting interest on borrowed funds, aligning with the Supreme Court's interpretation. Therefore, the question was answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, and the reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 116
Issues:
1. Inclusion of excise duty in the closing stock of finished goods.
2. Treatment of payment to executive director as 'profits in lieu of salary' under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Inclusion of excise duty in the closing stock of finished goods
The first question raised was whether excise duty paid on goods lying at the company's depot at the end of the year should be included in the value of the closing stock of finished goods. The counsel for the assessee did not press this question as it had become academic. Therefore, Question No. 1 was returned unanswered.
Issue 2: Treatment of payment to executive director as 'profits in lieu of salary'
The second question revolved around whether a payment of Rs. 1,00,000 made to the executive director of the company should be considered as 'profits in lieu of salary' under section 40A(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The company argued that the payment was for exceptional services rendered by the director and not in the nature of salary. However, the Income-tax Officer, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal all held that the payment constituted 'profits in lieu of salary.' The Tribunal specifically noted that the amount was a special bonus for exceptional services. The court, after considering the submissions and the relevant provisions of the Act, agreed with the Tribunal's finding. The payment fell within the definition of 'profits in lieu of salary' as per clause (3) of section 17 of the Act. Therefore, Question No. 2 was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.
In conclusion, the reference was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 115
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of the applicability of section 40A(8) regarding interest paid on borrowed monies by way of public deposits in computing income from business.
2. Determination of the admissibility of liability for the payment of surtax as a deduction in the computation of income under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The first question raised in the judgment revolves around the interpretation of whether interest paid on borrowed monies through public deposits is allowable only in computing income from business and if section 40A(8) is applicable to such interest payments. The court analyzed section 80V of the Income-tax Act, which allows deduction for interest paid on money borrowed for the payment of any tax due under the Act. It was highlighted that the purpose of this provision is to encourage taxpayers to pay their tax dues promptly even by borrowing. However, in the case at hand, the borrowed amounts through public deposits were not utilized for paying taxes but for augmenting working funds. The court emphasized that no deduction under section 80V is available unless money is borrowed specifically for the payment of any tax due under the Act. Therefore, the court held that the interest paid on such borrowings is allowable as a deduction in computing income from business, and section 40A(8) is applicable to such expenditure. The decision was supported by a previous ruling and distinguished from a decision cited by the counsel for the assessee.
Issue 2:
The second question in the judgment pertained to the admissibility of the liability for the payment of surtax as a deduction in the computation of income under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court referred to a decision by the Supreme Court, which favored the Revenue on this matter. Following the precedent, the court answered question number 2 in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue, indicating that the liability for the payment of surtax is not an admissible deduction in the computation of income. The judgment provided a clear and concise analysis of the legal provisions and precedents to arrive at this conclusion.
In conclusion, the High Court of Bombay addressed the issues raised in the judgment with a detailed analysis of the relevant legal provisions, precedents, and factual circumstances of the case, ultimately providing a comprehensive and well-reasoned decision on each issue.
-
1998 (11) TMI 114
Issues Involved:
1. Scope and application of Section 281 of the IT Act, 1961.
2. Validity of revocation of the no-objection certificate (NOC) by the Assessing Officer (AO).
3. Allegations of mala fides in the revocation of the NOC.
4. Right of the AO to cancel a certificate already issued.
5. Requirement of transparency and adherence to principles of natural justice in revocation proceedings.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Scope and Application of Section 281 of the IT Act, 1961:
The judgment extensively discusses Section 281 of the IT Act, 1961, which deals with the voidability of transfers made by an assessee during the pendency of proceedings or before the service of notice under Rule 2 of the Second Schedule. The section declares such transfers void against any tax claims unless made for adequate consideration without notice of proceedings or with prior permission of the AO. The court emphasizes that the section acts as a statutory injunction restraining the assessee from alienating properties without the conditions mentioned in the provisos, thereby ensuring the Department's claims are protected.
2. Validity of Revocation of the NOC by the AO:
The petitioner challenged the revocation of the NOC issued under Section 281, arguing that it was done without assigning reasons and was communicated to financial institutions, indicating mala fides. The court noted that the revocation was justified as the initial certificate was issued based on insufficient information. The AO has inherent power to rectify mistakes, especially when material facts were concealed by the petitioner. The court held that the AO's action was within their rights, given the concealment of the income-tax raid details by the petitioner.
3. Allegations of Mala Fides in the Revocation of the NOC:
The petitioner alleged mala fides, arguing that similar certificates were not revoked previously and that the cancellation was communicated to financial institutions with an ulterior motive. The court dismissed these allegations, stating that the earlier certificates were issued before the raid and circumstances could change post-raid. The court found the Department's communication to financial institutions appropriate, as it was necessary to inform them of the revocation to prevent reliance on the invalid certificate.
4. Right of the AO to Cancel a Certificate Already Issued:
The court affirmed the AO's inherent power to cancel a certificate issued based on insufficient or incorrect information. It emphasized that no one can take advantage of their own wrong, and the AO can rectify errors to prevent misuse of the certificate. The court clarified that this power exists independently of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, which was argued by the petitioner's counsel.
5. Requirement of Transparency and Adherence to Principles of Natural Justice in Revocation Proceedings:
The court highlighted the importance of transparency and adherence to the principles of natural justice in revocation proceedings. It noted that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before the certificate was revoked, and the reasons for revocation were not disclosed in the impugned order. The court quashed the revocation order (annexure-C) for violating the rule of audi alteram partem and directed the respondent to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioner, disclosing the circumstances and allowing the petitioner to submit objections before passing a final speaking order.
Conclusion:
The court disposed of the writ petition by quashing the revocation order and directing the respondent to follow due process, including issuing a show-cause notice and providing an opportunity for the petitioner to be heard. The court also instructed that a different officer of corresponding rank handle the case to ensure impartiality.
-
1998 (11) TMI 113
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutional validity of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998.
2. Discrimination among assessees under the Scheme.
3. Classification of litigating assessees in arrears.
4. Applicability of the Scheme to assessees from whom recovery was effected.
Summary:
1. Constitutional Validity of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998:
The petitioners challenged the constitutional validity of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998, contained in sections 86 to 98 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, on the grounds that it violates Article 14 and Entry 82 in List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. The Scheme aims to reduce tax arrears and litigation by offering partial waiver of tax dues and immunity against prosecution and penalties.
2. Discrimination Among Assessees Under the Scheme:
The petitioners argued that the Scheme treats different assessees within the same class unequally, violating Article 14. They provided illustrations showing that assessees with identical tax liabilities are treated differently based on whether they have paid the tax or not by a specific date, which they claimed is discriminatory and arbitrary.
3. Classification of Litigating Assessees in Arrears:
The court examined whether the classification of assessees into those litigating as appellants and those litigating as respondents is arbitrary or irrational. The court found that this classification creates an artificial and arbitrary distinction, as both categories of assessees are similarly situated in terms of their tax disputes and arrears. The court held that this classification violates Article 14.
4. Applicability of the Scheme to Assessees from Whom Recovery was Effected:
The court addressed the issue of whether the Scheme should apply to assessees from whom tax recovery was effected through coercive methods or adjustments. The court concluded that allowing such assessees to benefit from the Scheme would defeat its objective of incentivizing the payment of tax arrears. Therefore, the classification excluding these assessees was held to be reasonable and not arbitrary.
Conclusion:
The court struck down the proviso to section 92 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The rest of the Scheme was held to be intra vires the Constitution, subject to reading down the definition of "tax arrears" in clause (m) of section 87 to include amounts determined as tax, penalty, or interest on or before March 31, 1998, even if such determination was later set aside but remains under challenge. The petition was allowed in part with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 112
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the death of Shri Chandrasinhrao resulted in a complete partition of the Hindu undivided family (HUF) of Dadasaheb Ukajirao.
2. Whether the estate of the deceased Chandrasinhrao in the HUF properties should be excluded from the properties of the HUF of Dadasaheb Ukajirao.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Complete Partition of HUF on Death of Shri Chandrasinhrao
The first issue examines whether the death of Shri Chandrasinhrao on March 27, 1965, resulted in a complete partition of the HUF of Dadasaheb Ukajirao, of which Chandrasinhrao was the karta. The Tribunal's conclusion that a complete partition occurred was based on the Hindu Succession Act's provisions. The court clarified that the Hindu Succession Act, particularly section 6, does not ordain that a coparcenary ends on the death of a male member. Instead, it deals with the devolution of the undivided interest of the deceased coparcener in the coparcenary property. The court emphasized that section 6 provides that the interest of a deceased male Hindu in a coparcenary property devolves by survivorship unless there is a surviving female relative specified in class I of the Schedule or a male relative claiming through such a female. In such cases, the interest devolves by testamentary or intestate succession under the Act, not by survivorship. The court concluded that the Hindu Succession Act does not envisage actual partition or disruption of the family upon the death of a coparcener. Therefore, the Tribunal was wrong in concluding that the death of Chandrasinhrao resulted in a complete partition of the HUF.
Issue 2: Exclusion of Deceased's Estate from HUF Properties
The second issue concerns whether the estate of the deceased Chandrasinhrao should be excluded from the HUF properties. The court noted that section 20 of the Wealth-tax Act deals with the partition of an HUF and its continued assessment. For wealth-tax purposes, the Assessing Officer must be satisfied that the joint family property has been partitioned among the members in definite portions. Mere satisfaction or a claim to severance in status without partitioning the property in definite portions does not bring an end to the HUF's status for assessment purposes. The court reiterated that section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act does not deem a partition but only hypothesizes the share of the deceased if a partition had taken place immediately before his death. The court emphasized that the heirs of the deceased become tenants-in-common with the coparcenary, and their shares are definite and determinate from the date of death. The court referred to previous decisions, including Goswami Brijratanlalji Maharaj v. CWT and M. K. Balakrishnan Menon v. Asst. CED-cum-ITO, to support its conclusion that the notional partition assumed for determining the deceased's interest does not result in the disruption of the coparcenary's status. The court concluded that the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the exclusion of the deceased's interest from the HUF properties without finding the necessary facts for the operation of section 6.
Conclusion:
The court answered both questions in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Tribunal was not right in concluding that the death of Shri Chandrasinhrao resulted in a complete partition of the HUF. Additionally, the Tribunal did not consider the necessary facts for excluding the deceased's estate from the HUF properties. The court emphasized that the continued existence of the HUF does not imply continued ownership of the same assets if the ownership changes by operation of law or by acts of the parties. The court also noted that the assessee did not appear despite notice, and there was no order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 111
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the consideration received by the assessee under the agreement with Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. is covered by the terms 'royalty' and 'fees for technical services' as defined in sections 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that 25% of the export commission received by the assessee was not taxable under section 9(1)(vi) or section 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Summary:
Issue 1:
The assessee, Ceat International, a non-resident company, entered into an agreement with Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. on September 9, 1977. The agreement involved the assessee receiving export commission for various services, including allowing the use of distribution channels, furnishing market information, and permitting the benefit of advertising expenditure. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the question of whether these payments constituted 'royalty' or 'fees for technical services' u/s 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal held that payments for services under clauses (b), (c), and (d) amounted to royalty or fees for technical services, thus taxable under the Act. However, the assessee chose not to pursue this question further, and it was returned unanswered.
Issue 2:
The Tribunal had to determine whether 25% of the export commission received by the assessee, attributable to services under clause (a) of the agreement, was taxable. Clause (a) involved the assessee forgoing export sales in favor of Ceat Tyres of India Ltd. The Tribunal concluded that this payment did not constitute 'royalty' or 'fees for technical services' as defined in sections 9(1)(vi) and 9(1)(vii). The High Court upheld this decision, stating that the payment for forgoing export sales did not involve imparting any technical, industrial, commercial, or scientific knowledge, nor did it constitute managerial, technical, or consultancy services. Consequently, 25% of the commission was not taxable under the Act.
Conclusion:
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision that 25% of the export commission was not taxable u/s 9(1)(vi) or 9(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and returned the question referred by the assessee unanswered. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 110
The High Court of Punjab and Haryana addressed the issue of whether certain payments made by an assessee for commission and subscriptions qualified for deduction under section 35B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer initially denied the deduction, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed it. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision. However, in line with a Supreme Court ruling in CIT v. Stepwell Industries Ltd., the High Court ruled against the assessee, stating that the payments did not qualify for deduction under section 35B.
-
1998 (11) TMI 109
Issues:
1. Whether the business of construction carried on by the assessee is an 'industrial undertaking'?
2. Whether the business of construction is eligible for investment allowance under section 32A(2)(b)(iii)?
3. Whether the business activity of the assessee qualifies for investment allowance under section 32A(2)(b)(iii)?
4. Whether the dumpers used by the assessee in civil engineering contract work are 'road transport vehicles' for investment allowance under section 32A(1)?
5. Whether the amount in the foreign exchange reserve account represents taxable profit or gain?
Analysis:
1. The first four questions were resolved in favor of the Revenue based on a previous Supreme Court decision. The High Court answered questions 1 to 4 against the assessee, following the precedent set by the Supreme Court in CIT v. N. C Budharaja and Co. [1993] 204 ITR 412.
2. The fifth question involved the treatment of the amount in the foreign exchange reserve account. The assessee had received advances for contract works in the Middle East, and the remaining foreign currency was converted into Indian rupees at the year-end. The Income-tax Officer taxed this amount, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee. The High Court agreed that the amount did not belong to the assessee until adjusted against future bills, and the conversion into Indian rupees was for accounting purposes only. Therefore, the High Court held that the amount was not taxable income, ruling in favor of the assessee.
3. The High Court concluded that until the foreign currency advances were adjusted against future bills, they could not be considered as income of the assessee. The conversion into Indian rupees at year-end was merely for accounting purposes, and the amount did not belong to the assessee until adjusted. Therefore, the High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal, ruling in favor of the assessee against the Revenue.
4. The High Court disposed of the reference accordingly, with no order as to costs, after providing a detailed analysis and resolution for each of the issues raised in the reference under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1998 (11) TMI 108
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notices u/s 148 for reassessment.
2. Applicability of section 43B adjustments.
3. Change of opinion by the Assessing Officer.
4. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under section 147.
Summary:
1. Validity of Notices u/s 148 for Reassessment:
The petitioner, a private limited company and an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenged the notices issued u/s 148 for reassessment of its income for the assessment year 1986-87. The notices were issued on March 7, 1990, and subsequently on March 27, 1991, after the initial notice was withdrawn. The petitioner contended that the question about the operation of section 43B had been duly considered by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment, and the claim was allowed after application of mind, supported by the decision in Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. ITO [1986] 162 ITR 240.
2. Applicability of Section 43B Adjustments:
The petitioner had adjusted the value of opening and closing stock by excluding the component of customs duty as a consequence of its treatment under section 43B. This adjustment was in line with the decision in Lakhanpal's case, which had not been reversed or overruled. The Assessing Officer had allowed this adjustment during the original assessment after making inquiries and considering the petitioner's claims.
3. Change of Opinion by the Assessing Officer:
The court opined that section 147 does not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to review his own order on a mere change of opinion. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for issuing the notice disclosed that the case was nothing but a mere change of opinion on facts already before the Assessing Officer during the original assessment. The court reiterated that mere change of opinion does not confer jurisdiction to initiate reassessment proceedings.
4. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer under Section 147:
The court emphasized that for the Assessing Officer to have jurisdiction u/s 147, there must be material having a reasonable nexus to the formation of the opinion about escapement of income. The reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer did not disclose any new material or error that would justify reopening the assessment. The reference to the decision in CIT v. British Paints India Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 44 was found to be irrelevant to the controversy at hand.
Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned notices for initiating reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 1986-87, holding that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer disclosed no more than a mere change of opinion. The petitions succeeded, and the rule was made absolute in each case, with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 107
Issues:
1. Whether expenses on stevedoring charges and port dues for loading and unloading iron ore are to be allowed as weighted deduction under section 35B?
2. Whether the payment of ex gratia amounting to Rs. 1,58,828 made to the Income-tax Act and entitled for deduction for the assessment year 1977-78?
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The court referred to a previous decision in Forbes Forbes Campbell and Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1994] 206 ITR 495, where it was concluded in favor of the Revenue that expenses incurred on stevedoring charges and port dues for loading and unloading iron ore are not to be allowed as weighted deduction under section 35B. Therefore, the court answered question No. 1 in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Issue 2:
Regarding question No. 2, the controversy revolved around the deduction of ex-gratia payment of Rs. 1,58,828 made to the employees as a bonus. The Tribunal allowed this claim under section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Revenue argued that the deduction should be determined by the test under section 36(1)(ii) for expenditure in the nature of bonus paid to employees. The court referred to the decision in Subodhchandra Popatlal v. CIT/EPT [1953] 24 ITR 566, supporting the Revenue's contention. The assessee's counsel acknowledged the court's decision and agreed that the deduction cannot be claimed under section 37(1) of the Act. However, the counsel argued that the ex-gratia payment was made to workers not covered by the Payment of Bonus Act, and thus, should be decided based on the test under the second proviso to section 36(1)(ii) of the Act. The court agreed that the Tribunal's conclusion was incorrect and answered question No. 2 in the negative, in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The Tribunal was directed to allow the assessee a reasonable opportunity to establish that the conditions under the second proviso to section 36(1)(ii) are met for deduction under that section.
In conclusion, the court disposed of the reference accordingly, with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 106
Issues Involved:
The judgment involves the following Issues:
1. Whether the taking over of the undertaking constituted a slump sale or only the sale of individual assets?
2. Determination of the cost of assets for capital gains and the treatment of consumer's contribution.
3. Taxability of the solatium given to the applicant.
Issue 1:
The court referred to section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and addressed whether the taking over of the assessee-company's undertaking constituted a slump sale or merely the sale of individual assets. The court relied on the decision in CIT v. Artex Manufacturing Co. [1997] 227 ITR 260, which clarified the application of section 41(2) in cases of business transfers. The court noted that the assets were taken over at a stipulated price, leading to the conclusion that it was not a slump sale. Consequently, the court answered question No. 1 in the affirmative, favoring the Revenue.
Issue 2:
Regarding the determination of the cost of assets for capital gains and the treatment of consumer's contribution, the court found that the controversy had become academic as the Tribunal remanded the factual aspect to the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the court deemed question No. 2 unnecessary to answer, and it remained unanswered.
Issue 3:
The court addressed the taxability of the solatium given to the applicant, referencing the decision in Akola Electric Supply Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 265. Following the precedent, the court answered question No. 3 in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 105
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Income-tax Officer (ITO) is entitled to reopen the assessment u/s 147(a) despite the assessee's failure to disclose all material facts.
2. Whether the ITO was already aware of the facts, thus negating the need for the assessee to disclose them again.
Summary:
Issue 1: Reopening Assessment u/s 147(a)
The court examined whether the ITO was justified in reopening the assessment u/s 147(a) due to the assessee's failure to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. The assessees had introduced extensive lands as capital in a partnership firm but did not disclose this in their returns, leading to the escapement of capital gains tax. The ITO issued notices u/s 148 read with section 147(a) to reassess the income. The Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal initially ruled in favor of the assessees, stating that the ITO was aware of the transfer of lands during the firm's assessment. However, the High Court found that the Tribunal misconstrued section 147(a) and emphasized that the duty to disclose all primary facts lies with the assessee. The court held that the ITO rightly initiated reassessment proceedings as the assessees failed to disclose material facts, leading to income escaping assessment.
Issue 2: ITO's Awareness of Facts
The court also addressed whether the ITO's awareness of the facts during the firm's assessment negated the need for the assessees to disclose them again in their individual returns. The Tribunal had ruled that the ITO's awareness during the firm's assessment meant there was no need for the assessees to disclose the facts again. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the assessees' duty to disclose all material facts in their individual returns is independent of the ITO's knowledge from other sources. The court cited precedents, including Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO and Zohar Siraj Lokhandwala v. M. G. Kamat, to support its position that the onus is on the assessee to make full and true disclosure.
Conclusion:
The High Court answered both questions in the negative, ruling in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee. The court upheld the ITO's right to reopen the assessment u/s 147(a) due to the assessees' failure to disclose material facts, resulting in the escapement of income. The reference was disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (11) TMI 104
Issues:
Validity of provisions of sections 271B, 44AB, 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding different dates for audit report submission for companies and non-companies.
Analysis:
The petitioners challenged the validity of provisions setting different dates for obtaining audit reports for companies and non-companies under sections 271B, 44AB, and 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. They argued that all assessees subject to audit constitute one group, and the differentiation in dates for filing returns is discriminatory. The Explanation to section 44AB defines specific dates for accounts of the previous year, with different dates for companies and others. The court noted that the law provides separate dates for companies and non-companies based on the nature of their operations and compliance requirements.
The petitioners relied on the principle of reasonable classification from the judgment in State of Gujarat v. Shri Ambica Mills Ltd., emphasizing that a classification must include all similarly situated individuals. The court considered the purpose of the law, highlighting that companies and non-companies have distinct characteristics justifying separate treatment. Section 271B imposes penalties for failure to audit accounts, emphasizing the importance of compliance with audit requirements.
The court rejected the petitioners' argument that different dates for audit reports and returns are discriminatory. It noted that companies have additional procedures under the Companies Act, warranting a later filing date. Different treatment for companies is justified as they form a separate class with unique compliance obligations. Previous judgments by various High Courts upheld the constitutionality of section 44AB, supporting the differentiation between companies and non-companies.
In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petitions challenging the provisions of sections 271B, 44AB, and 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioners were advised to file appeals before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal within four weeks to challenge the dismissal of their appeals by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
-
1998 (11) TMI 103
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Section 143(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Whether the additional tax under Section 143(1A) is penal in nature.
3. Constitutionality of Section 143(1A) under Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India.
4. Legislative competence of Parliament to enact Section 143(1A).
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Section 143(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The petitioners challenged the validity of Section 143(1A) on grounds that it is discriminatory, arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India. Section 143(1A) mandates that when the total income, as a result of adjustments, exceeds the declared income, an additional tax of 20% on the excess amount is levied. The court noted that this provision was introduced to ensure accurate and honest filing of returns and to prevent tax evasion. The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in Kamal Textiles v. ITO, upheld the validity of Section 143(1A), noting that the adjustments pertain to apparent errors and prima facie admissible or inadmissible claims based on the return's information.
2. Whether the additional tax under Section 143(1A) is penal in nature:
The petitioners argued that the additional tax is penal and should require a hearing before imposition, similar to penalties under Section 271(1)(c). However, the court distinguished between penalty and additional tax, stating that the latter is a compensatory measure to ensure accurate returns and is not discretionary. The court cited various High Court judgments, including the Kerala High Court in Kerala State Coir Corporation Ltd. v. Union of India, which upheld the provision as a preventive measure against tax evasion rather than a penalty.
3. Constitutionality of Section 143(1A) under Articles 14 and 265 of the Constitution of India:
The court examined whether Section 143(1A) violates the principles of natural justice or is discriminatory, arbitrary, or unreasonable. It concluded that the provision is within legislative competence and serves the purpose of ensuring correct tax payments and compliance with the law. The court noted that the provision allows for post-decisional hearing through objections, revisions, and appeals, thus not violating natural justice principles. The court also referenced the Central Board of Direct Taxes' Circular No. 549, which justified the additional tax as a deterrent against filing incorrect returns.
4. Legislative competence of Parliament to enact Section 143(1A):
The court affirmed Parliament's competence to legislate on taxes under Entry 82 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which includes taxes on income other than agricultural income. It also referred to Entry 97, which allows Parliament to legislate on any matter not enumerated in List II or III. The court cited various judgments, including Union of India v. Bombay Tyre International Ltd. and CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty, to support the view that the measure of tax can be broader and encompass additional tax to prevent evasion. The court concluded that Section 143(1A) is a valid exercise of legislative power and does not violate Articles 14 and 265.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the validity of Section 143(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It ruled that the provision is not penal but compensatory, aimed at preventing tax evasion and ensuring accurate tax returns. The court found that the provision does not violate the Constitution and is within Parliament's legislative competence.
-
1998 (11) TMI 102
Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of bank charges and interest on unpaid purchase price.
2. Recompute capital employed in the industrial undertaking.
3. Addition of cost of purchasing old looms for depreciation.
4. Allowance of loss on the sale of Government securities.
5. Inclusion of customs duty drawback, excise duty refund, and premium gain on value of yarn entitlement in export turnover.
6. Inclusion of customs duty drawback, excise duty refund, and premium gain on value of yarn entitlement in total turnover.
7. Deduction of interest amount.
8. Application of Para. F of the First Schedule to the Finance Acts.
9. Deduction of tax paid under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964.
10. Reduction of profit by development rebate allowance for section 80E deduction.
11. Disallowance of remuneration paid to certain ladies.
12. Disallowance of further expenditure incurred in litigation against M/s. Kutty Industrials.
13. Disallowance of legal expenses in connection with Bhiwani Textile Mills.
14. Deduction of trading loss due to devaluation of the rupee.
15. Taxability of amount deducted from deposits/salary of ex-employees.
16. Allowability of expenditure incurred in acquiring import entitlements.
Summary:
Issue 1: Deletion of Bank Charges and Interest on Unpaid Purchase Price
The Tribunal allowed the deduction of interest and bank charges on the unpaid purchase price of private forest land. The court upheld this, stating that the land purchase was closely related to the business, making the interest a revenue expenditure deductible u/s 37(1).
Issue 2: Recompute Capital Employed in the Industrial Undertaking
This question was returned unanswered as it became infructuous due to the Tribunal's order dated October 1, 1986.
Issue 3: Addition of Cost of Purchasing Old Looms for Depreciation
This question was not pressed by the Revenue in light of the Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in Gwalior Rayon Silk Mfg. (Wvg.) Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1988] 173 ITR 126, and was returned unanswered.
Issue 4: Allowance of Loss on the Sale of Government Securities
The Tribunal allowed the deduction of the loss incurred on the sale of Government securities, noting that the purchase was made under governmental pressure. The court upheld this finding.
Issue 5: Inclusion of Customs Duty Drawback, Excise Duty Refund, and Premium Gain on Value of Yarn Entitlement in Export Turnover
The court decided this issue partly in favor of the Revenue and partly in favor of the assessee, following previous decisions. Drawback of customs duty and refund of excise duty were included, but premium gain on yarn entitlement was not.
Issue 6: Inclusion of Customs Duty Drawback, Excise Duty Refund, and Premium Gain on Value of Yarn Entitlement in Total Turnover
Similar to Issue 5, this issue was decided partly in favor of the Revenue and partly in favor of the assessee.
Issue 7: Deduction of Interest Amount
The court held that the assessee was not entitled to the deduction of interest amounts either u/s 36(1)(iii), u/s 37, or u/s 28, following previous judgments in favor of the Revenue.
Issue 8: Application of Para. F of the First Schedule to the Finance Acts
This question was not pressed and hence returned unanswered.
Issue 9: Deduction of Tax Paid under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964
The court held that the tax paid under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act was not a permissible deduction, following the Supreme Court decision in Smith Kline and French (India) Ltd. v. CIT [1996] 219 ITR 581.
Issue 10: Reduction of Profit by Development Rebate Allowance for Section 80E Deduction
The court held that the profit should be reduced by the amount of development rebate allowance, following the Supreme Court decision in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1978] 113 ITR 84.
Issue 11: Disallowance of Remuneration Paid to Certain Ladies
This question was not pressed by the assessee and was returned unanswered.
Issue 12: Disallowance of Further Expenditure Incurred in Litigation Against M/s. Kutty Industrials
This question was not pressed by the assessee and was returned unanswered.
Issue 13: Disallowance of Legal Expenses in Connection with Bhiwani Textile Mills
This question was not pressed by the assessee and was returned unanswered.
Issue 14: Deduction of Trading Loss Due to Devaluation of the Rupee
The court held that the trading loss due to devaluation of the rupee was deductible, following the decision in CIT v. V S. Dempo and Co. Pvt. Ltd. [1994] 206 ITR 291.
Issue 15: Taxability of Amount Deducted from Deposits/Salary of Ex-employees
This question was not pressed by the assessee and was returned unanswered.
Issue 16: Allowability of Expenditure Incurred in Acquiring Import Entitlements
The court held that the expenditure was allowable as a deduction in the assessment year 1970-71 when it was written off, following decisions in CIT v. Kusum Products Ltd. [1984] 149 ITR 250 and R. G. S. Industries v. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 31.
-
1998 (11) TMI 101
Issues:
1. Whether salary and interest paid to partners in their individual capacity should be added to the income of the firm under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1980-81?
2. Whether interest paid on Hindu undivided family credit balances should be added under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1980-81?
Analysis:
1. The first issue revolves around the interpretation of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, specifically regarding the treatment of salary and interest paid to partners in their individual capacity. The assessee, a firm, paid salary and interest to partners, which were added to the firm's income by the Income-tax Officer. The appellate authorities upheld this decision, leading to an appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal also confirmed the addition of these amounts to the firm's income. The key argument was whether the payments were made to partners as individuals or as representatives of Hindu undivided families. The counsel for the assessee relied on previous judgments to argue that payments to partners representing Hindu undivided families should not be added to the firm's income. The court analyzed the precedents cited and concluded that payments made to partners in their individual capacity for services rendered should be added to the firm's income, while payments made to partners representing Hindu undivided families should not be included under section 40(b) of the Act.
2. The second issue pertains to the treatment of interest paid on Hindu undivided family credit balances under section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment year 1980-81. The Tribunal held that such interest should be added to the firm's income. The court referred to Explanation 2 under section 40(b), which specifies that interest paid by the firm to an individual partner in a representative capacity shall be considered for the purposes of the clause. Based on this provision, the court upheld the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the interest paid on Hindu undivided family credit balances should indeed be added under section 40(b). Consequently, the second question was answered in the affirmative, against the assessee.
In conclusion, the court's judgment clarified the application of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act regarding payments made to partners in their individual capacity versus as representatives of Hindu undivided families. The court differentiated between the treatment of salary and interest payments based on the capacity in which they were received by the partners, ensuring a clear distinction in determining their inclusion in the firm's income.
............
|
9911796707
