Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1995 1995 (2) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 361 to 366 of 366 Records

• 1995 (2) TMI 6
  
  Issues: Registration of a partnership firm despite a partner being a minor during the major part of the accounting year.
  
  Analysis:
  The case involved a partnership firm formed by an oral agreement effective from January 1, 1981, for the business of manufacturing veneer. The partnership deed was executed on February 23, 1982. The Income-tax Officer rejected the registration claim due to one partner being a minor during the oral agreement. The assessee argued that as the minor partner had attained majority by the date of the partnership deed, registration should be granted. The Tribunal considered relevant judgments and held that the minor partner was admitted to the benefits of the partnership by the contracting parties who had the capacity to contract. The Tribunal also noted that the firm was not found to be bogus. The High Court emphasized that the Income-tax Officer's jurisdiction is limited to verifying compliance with the law and the genuineness of the firm. The court highlighted the rights of a minor admitted to a partnership under the Indian Partnership Act, stating that a minor, upon attaining majority, can choose to become a partner or repudiate the partnership. Silence after attaining majority is considered an election to become a partner.
  
  The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal had concurrent findings on the grant of registration. Despite the Revenue's argument against the plausibility of the explanation accepted by the lower authorities, the court upheld the decision in favor of the assessee. The court answered the referred question affirmatively in favor of the assessee, ruling against the Revenue.

  ---

• 1995 (2) TMI 5
  
  Issues:
  1. Interpretation of section 69D regarding repayment through demand drafts.
  2. Distinction between account payee cheque and demand draft for disallowance under section 69D.
  
  Analysis:
  The judgment by the Andhra Pradesh High Court involved a dispute regarding the interpretation of section 69D of the Income Tax Act. The assessee had borrowed money on hundis and repaid the same through demand drafts during the relevant assessment year. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the repayment amount under section 69D, as it was not made through an account payee cheque drawn on a bank. The Appellate Tribunal, after considering various decisions, concluded that the effect of an account payee cheque and a demand draft in this context would be the same. The questions referred to the court were whether the assessee fulfilled the requirements of section 69D by repaying through demand drafts and whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition from the total income of the assessee.
  
  The court analyzed the legislative intent behind section 69D, which aimed to unearth black money and ensure transparency in transactions involving borrowal by hundis. The court observed that the object of identifying the payee is achieved whether payment is made through a crossed account payee cheque or a crossed demand draft. The court noted that while other sections like 40A(3), 269T, and 269SS explicitly mentioned account payee bank drafts as an alternative mode of payment, section 69D did not. However, the court opined that the omission to refer to an account payee demand draft in section 69D was likely inadvertent. The court emphasized that the purpose of disallowance under section 69D is to ensure verifiability of transactions, and since repayment through an account payee demand draft serves this purpose, it should be treated similarly to an account payee cheque drawn on a bank for the provisions of section 69D.
  
  In conclusion, the court held in favor of the assessee, answering the questions in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The judgment clarified that for the purpose of disallowance under section 69D, repayment through an account payee demand draft should be considered equivalent to an account payee cheque drawn on a bank, thereby allowing the deletion of the addition from the total income of the assessee.

  ---

• 1995 (2) TMI 4
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the fluctuation in the rate of exchange paid by the assessee to the Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation of India Limited (ICICI) is a revenue expenditure and should accordingly be allowed.
  2. Whether the excess payment made by the assessee to ICICI on account of fluctuation in the rate of exchange can be treated as part of the cost of the capital assets imported by the assessee from West Germany.
  3. Whether the provisions of section 43A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, would apply to the assessee's case.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Revenue Expenditure
  The Tribunal held that the amounts paid due to fluctuation in the exchange rate in the assessment years were revenue in nature and, therefore, deductible from the reported income. The Tribunal distinguished the case from CIT v. South India Viscose Ltd. [1979] 120 ITR 451 where payments due to exchange rate fluctuations were considered capital expenditures. The Tribunal found that the payments in the present case were related to the repayment of a loan and not directly to the purchase price of machinery.
  
  Issue 2: Cost of Capital Assets
  The Tribunal concluded that the excess payment due to exchange rate fluctuation should not be treated as part of the cost of the capital assets. This was contested by the Revenue, which argued that any additional amount paid towards the cost of machinery due to exchange fluctuations should be considered capital expenditure. The Revenue cited several cases, including Union Carbide India Ltd. v. CIT [1981] 130 ITR 351 (Cal), where similar payments were treated as capital expenditure.
  
  Issue 3: Applicability of Section 43A
  The Tribunal held that section 43A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which deals with the treatment of exchange rate fluctuations in the cost of assets, was not applicable to the assessee's case. The Revenue argued that section 43A should apply, as it specifically addresses the impact of exchange rate fluctuations on the cost of imported assets. The Tribunal's decision was challenged based on precedents, including Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1989] 177 ITR 532 (AP) and Mopeds India Ltd. v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 552 (AP), where section 43A was applied to similar circumstances.
  
  Court's Conclusion:
  The court examined various precedents and found that the Tribunal's decision was not consistent with established legal principles. The court cited South India Viscose Ltd., Union Carbide India Ltd., and Kesoram Industries and Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 196 ITR 845, among others, which treated such additional payments due to exchange rate fluctuations as capital expenditures.
  
  The court concluded that:
  1. The additional amount paid due to fluctuation in the exchange rate is capital expenditure.
  2. The excess payment should be treated as part of the cost of the capital assets.
  3. Section 43A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is applicable to the assessee's case.
  
  Accordingly, the court answered the questions referred to it in the negative and in favor of the Department, thereby overturning the Tribunal's decision. The counsel's fee was fixed at Rs. 1,000.

  ---

• 1995 (2) TMI 3
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of whether the assessee qualifies as an "industrial company" under section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1978.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The case involved a reference from the Commissioner of Income-tax, Andhra Pradesh-II, regarding the classification of the assessee as an "industrial company" for tax purposes. The primary question was whether the activities of the assessee, which involved purchasing materials, cutting, welding, and assembling trusses for construction purposes, qualified as manufacturing under the definition of an "industrial company" as per section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1978.
  
  The Appellate Tribunal had held that the assessee's activities amounted to manufacturing, and the income from these activities exceeded 51 percent. The Revenue contended that the activities did not constitute manufacturing and that placing trusses in buildings equated to construction, not manufacturing. The Revenue also relied on a previous judgment that had been reversed by the Supreme Court to argue against the assessee's classification as an industrial company.
  
  The Tribunal's findings revealed that the assessee's activities involved sale of manufactured goods, fabrication of trusses, and labor charges on structural work, with a significant portion of the income attributed to manufacturing or processing of goods. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's activities met the criteria of manufacturing within the definition of an "industrial company."
  
  The High Court, in its analysis, referred to a previous Division Bench decision and emphasized that for a company to be classified as an "industrial company," it was sufficient if the company engaged in the manufacturing of goods. The Court highlighted that the application of the Explanation regarding income attribution would only arise if the company was not primarily engaged in industrial activities. In this case, the Tribunal's findings supported the assessee's classification as an industrial company, irrespective of income attribution percentages.
  
  The Court distinguished a previous Supreme Court judgment that had reversed a decision regarding a construction firm's classification as an industrial undertaking, noting that the facts of the present case supported the assessee's manufacturing activities. The Court ultimately answered the question in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, confirming the assessee's status as an "industrial company" under section 2(7)(c) of the Finance Act, 1978.

  ---

• 1995 (2) TMI 2
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of section 35B(1)(b)(iv) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding weighted deduction for maintaining agency for promotion of sales outside India.
  
  Analysis:
  For the assessment year 1983-84, the Tribunal referred a question under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, regarding the entitlement of the assessee to weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b)(iv) for maintaining agency for promotion of sales outside India. The assessee claimed weighted deduction for commission paid to foreign agents for promoting exports, including procuring and maintaining export business outside India.
  
  The Tribunal found that the assessee had six agents representing export territories, including the U.S.S.R., Oman, Kenya, Sri Lanka, and China. It was noted that the commission was paid outside India, which is a crucial factor in determining eligibility for weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b)(iv).
  
  The court analyzed the relevant sub-clause (iv) of section 35B(1)(b), emphasizing that the expenditure must be incurred wholly and exclusively on maintaining an agency outside India for promoting sales outside India. It was clarified that the assessee can claim weighted deduction even if the promotion of sales is done through an agency, without the necessity of maintaining a branch or office outside India.
  
  Referring to legal principles from Halsbury's Laws of England, the court highlighted that the essence of an agency relationship is to act as an intermediary between two parties. The court emphasized that the expenditure incurred by the assessee for paying commission to foreign agents for promoting sales outside India qualifies as expenditure wholly and exclusively for the promotion of sales outside India through maintaining an agency abroad.
  
  The court cited decisions from the Calcutta High Court, Kerala High Court, and other cases supporting the view that weighted deduction can be claimed for maintaining agency for promotion of sales outside India. Based on the discussion and precedents, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the expenditure on commission to foreign agents for promoting exports constitutes expenditure eligible for weighted deduction under section 35B(1)(b)(iv).
  
  The judgment disposed of the reference in favor of the assessee, with no order as to costs.

  ---

• 1995 (2) TMI 1
  
  The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, upholding the Income-tax Officer's finding that the petitioners owe tax of Rs. 3,54,864 for concealing stock valued at Rs. 4,93,177. (Case Citation: 1995 (2) TMI 1 - SC)

  ---

1 ....1516171819