|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 437 Records
-
1997 (3) TMI 77 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... xistence or absence of entries in his books of account be decisive or conclusive in the matter. During the course of hearing it was pointed out by Mr. Katriar, learned counsel for the assessee, that a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in T. R. C. No. 52 of 1989 and connected matters in the case of the assessee itself titled as Mica Trading Corporation of India Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh 1996 100 STC 142 decided on August 28, 1995, has held that it was liable to pay sales tax/purchase tax for various years including for the assessment year in question. The liability to payment of sales tax as held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of the assessee itself, would support the contention of the assessee of its claim for deduction of sales tax/purchase tax though the same was contingent when such claim was made. We thus answer the questions in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 76 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Income From Business, Income From Property, Lease Rent ... ... ... ... ..... which was held on lease by the assessee, was owned by him. It is correct that the godown was constructed as per the specification of the Food Corporation of India but there is no finding of the Appellate Tribunal as to what were the objects of the assessee, which is a limited company under the Companies Act, and whether in fact it was in the business of developing the landed properties and promoted markets, as held by the Supreme Court in East India Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. v. CIT 1961 42 ITR 49. Even that could not be enough to hold that the income derived would be income to be assessed against the head Business . Considering the statement of facts as found by the Tribunal we are of the opinion that the income in the present case would be income from property and not from business . Accordingly, we answer the question in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Since the assessee is not represented, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 75 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Supreme Court, Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... ale as used in paragraph 5 of the circular issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the deduction of tax at source from the petitioners is illegal and without jurisdiction. As a logical corollary, it has to be held that the provisions of section 206C as amended by the Finance Act, 1992, are not available to the Income-tax Department to compel CITCO to deduct income-tax at source from the petitioners. Consequently, the writ petitions are allowed. The impugned deductions are declared illegal and are quashed. If respondent No. 1 or CITCO have already deducted income-tax at source from the petitioners by resorting to the provisions of section 206C of the Act, then the said amount shall be refunded to them within a period of two months from today. In case the amount is not refunded to the petitioners within this period, then they shall become entitled to interest at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum from the date of this order.
-
1997 (3) TMI 74 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Purchase And Sale, Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... arketable condition and as such the view taken by the Central Government as contained in annexure-2 and quoted in paragraph 13 of the judgment is the correct one. The object of section 206C is to collect tax at source at the time of sale of the goods as specified in the Table when the goods obtained by sale are used for trading purposes. The proviso to the said section is attracted only when the goods sold are utilised for the purposes of processing, etc. The proviso will be attracted only when the goods as stated in table are purchased for being utilised for the said purposes. In this case in view of the discussion made above it is clear that the goods sold are used for trading purposes and not for processing purposes. Thus, the proviso to section 206C of the Act is not attracted in this case. Accordingly, there is no merit in these applications and the same are dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. S. K. CHATTOPADHYAY J.---I agree.
-
1997 (3) TMI 73 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Substantially Interested ... ... ... ... ..... as held that the payment did not fall under section 40(c) of the Act. In the instant case, as indicated above, the payment was made to Larsen and Toubro Ltd., which is admittedly a company having substantial interest in the assessee-company, for the services of its directors lent to the assessee-company for the management of the assessee-company. This payment squarely falls within the purview of section 40(c) of the Act. The Tribunal, in our opinion, was justified in holding so. Accordingly, the questions referred to us are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. In view of the above finding of ours, we do not propose to deal with the controversy whether the above controversy is a facet of the controversy arising out of the questions referred to us or is a new controversy sought to be raised in the garb of the facet of the controversy involved in the questions referred to us. These references are disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 72 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Bona Fide, Carrying On Business, Deemed Gift, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... exemption under section 5(1)(xiv) is not available. Conclusion In view of the above, we answer the questions referred as follows (a) Contribution of the individual asset of the partner towards the capital of the firm is a transfer of property under the Gift-tax Act. But, it is neither a gift nor a deemed gift under section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act (subject to the reservation in paragraph 10 (page 439) above). (b) As the answer to the first question is in the negative, the second question does not survive for consideration. (c) The exemption under section 5(1)(xiv) of the Gift-tax Act was not available in respect of a contribution of the personal asset of a partner to the capital of the firm at the time of constitution of the firm. The said question is accordingly answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. As the first question is answered in favour of the assessee, the contribution of the gift by the petitioner to the firm is not taxable under the Gift-tax Act.
-
1997 (3) TMI 71 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Purchase Tax, Revised Return ... ... ... ... ..... against the order of the lower authority and, if the matter was never contested on a particular issue before the lower authority, no grounds can legitimately be raised before the appellate authority. As has been seen, the assessee had claimed a deduction at Rs. 20,000 only, which was allowed in appeal. Therefore, there was no occasion to raise the claim from Rs. 20,000 to Rs. 40,514 before the appellate authority. The appropriate forum to claim higher deduction was the Assessing Officer only. The assessee can be held to be entitled to claim deduction for the entire amount of tax liability on accrual basis, but that alone would not entitle him to claim deduction by way of an appeal or revision inasmuch as the higher claim was never sought at the time of assessment. The appellate authority can grant relief only to the extent it was declined unjustifiably by the lower authority. In the result, the petition is found to be without substance and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 70 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return ... ... ... ... ..... dering the case of a legal representative which was covered by section 19 of the Act as a legal representative of a deceased person is assessable for payment of wealth-tax on the net wealth of the deceased under section 19 of the Act. Therefore, the aforesaid two decisions are quite distinguishable and can be of no avail to learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee for deciding the present question referred to this court. As the present case is not a case in relation to legal representatives, we refrain from expressing any opinion relating to correctness of the law laid down in the aforesaid two decisions. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that penalty proceedings under section 18(1)(a) of the Act could have been initiated against the executor. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to this court against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna.
-
1997 (3) TMI 69 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... h the contentions that might be raised before it, on behalf of the appellant by a reasoned order. The respondents or any of them, having due authority, are directed to proceed with and complete the assessment within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order to them. The view expressed in the impugned notice, we have presumed, because of the status of the Assessing Officer, is tentative and as such we expect that such officer would now proceed with the case with an open mind, in accordance with law, uninfluenced by such tentative view. In view of the disposal of the appeal, the interlocutory application becomes infructuous and is disposed of as such. There will be no order as to costs. Let plain copies of the order, countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be given to learned counsel appearing for the parties on their undertaking to apply for certified copy of the order and to put in requisite stamps for the same. BARIN GHOSH J. --- I agree
-
1997 (3) TMI 68 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Failure To File Return, Waiver Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ommissioner, are found to have been fulfilled, then the satisfaction of the Commissioner is to be recorded and has, in fact, been recorded in the present cases. Therefore, there are found to be no sufficient and valid reasons to impose penalty in any of the years. The mere fact that the returns are filed late would not invite the levy of penalty. The provisions contained in section 18B of the Act do make an assessee entitled to claim waiver once the assessee is able to show that he fulfilled all the conditions specified therein. Since the petitioners are found to have satisfied all the conditions and the Commissioner has recorded his satisfaction in his order dated February 9, 1983, passed under section 18B of the Act, there is no reason to refuse the benefit of waiver of penalty to the petitioners. In the result, both the petitions succeed and the penalties, imposed under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, for all the years in question are waived. No order as to costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 67 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Assessee Carrying On Business, Capital Expenditure, Mines And Quarries, Mining Lease, Revenue Expenditure
-
1997 (3) TMI 66 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Previous Year, Share Income ... ... ... ... ..... self. The principle laid down by this court in CIT v. M. S. Sheik Rowther 1962 46 ITR 259 has been understood in the same manner by the High Court of Calcutta in Biswanath Goenka v. CIT 1991 189 ITR 687, and also by the High Court of Bombay in CIT v. Mc Kenzies Ltd. 1980 121 ITR 458. We do not find that the Andhra Pradesh High Court had considered the real effect of clause (f) of section 3(1) as it was considered by the High Court of Bombay or Calcutta, nor was there a consideration of the decision of this court in CIT v. M. S. Sheik Rowther 1962 46 ITR 259. In the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that the income of the assessee from the partnership was correctly assessed in the year 1978-79. We therefore answer the question referred in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1997 (3) TMI 65 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Deemed Gift, Immovable Property, Movable Property, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... When a question of law does arise out of the order passed by the Tribunal, it would be proper for the Tribunal to refer the question of law which arises out of the order passed by the Tribunal, for the opinion of this court. Whether the question has been rightly decided by the Tribunal, is no consideration for refusing to call for the reference because if the question of law does arise from the order passed by the Tribunal then it is for the High Court to decide that question and the Tribunal is not competent to decide the question of law. In this view of the matter, we think it proper to direct the Tribunal to refer the question of law mentioned in para. 1 hereinabove for the opinion of this court. In the result, the application under section 26(3) of the Gift-tax Act is allowed and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, is directed to state the case and refer the question of law hereinabove stated in para 1 of the judgment, for the opinion of this court.
-
1997 (3) TMI 64 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Contingent Liabilities, Excise Duty, Show-cause Notice ... ... ... ... ..... t the assessee had incurred an enforceable legal liability on and from the date on which he received the Collector s demand for payment and that his endeavour to get out of that liability by preferring appeals could not in any way detract from or retard the efficacy of the liability which had been imposed upon him by the competent excise authority. The Supreme Court held that the above decision laid down the law correctly. Obviously, the ratio of the above decision is not applicable to the present case. The facts of the present case are completely different. In this case, there was neither a statutory liability nor any enforceable legal liability. In fact, there was no liability at all. Even if there was a liability, it was a purely contingent liability which is not deductible for income-tax purposes. In view of the above, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. The reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (3) TMI 63 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Contribution To Recognised Provident Fund ... ... ... ... ..... But we do not think that these decisions help Mr. Katriar in any way and we do not think it even necessary to deal with the same. Accordingly, we hold that the contribution made by the assessee to the recognised provident fund of its holding company cannot be allowed as deduction from the income of the assessee under section 36(1)(iv) of the Act. The question is thus answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs. We may also note that during the course of hearing, it was brought to our notice that the assessee-company had since merged with the MMTC Ltd., with effect from April 1, 1995. We have, therefore, allowed the MMTC to be substituted in place of the assessee-company, i.e., Mica Trading Corporation of India. However, the question as referred to and answered by us cannot be any different on account of the substitution of the MMTC Ltd. in place of the assessee-company. S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA J.--I agree
-
1997 (3) TMI 62 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessing Officer, Assessment Proceedings, Doctrine Of Merger, Jurisdiction To Reassess, Liquor Business, Reassessment Proceedings
-
1997 (3) TMI 61 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
High Court, Recovery Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... action on the part of the Central Government in appointing a permanent Judicial Member at Jaipur Bench, the petitioner has made out a case for interference by this court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. I further direct the respondents not to adopt coercive methods for the realisation of the impugned amount against the petitioner-company for a period of three months and I also direct the respondent-Union of India to constitute a Bench of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, within 30 days from the date of service of the order of this court and the Bench so constituted should dispose of at least the stay application if not the appeal of the petitioner within a period of one month thereafter. With the observations and directions contained above, the petition stands finally disposed of at the admission stage itself. Let a certified copy of this order be sent to the Finance Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi, at once.
-
1997 (3) TMI 60 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Interest On Advance, Irrecoverable Debt ... ... ... ... ..... this is not a case of bad debt where the assessee itself had taken the income into account in the preceding years and on its not being realised had written it off as a bad and irrecoverable debt. It has converted the debt into shares. The contention put forward by the assessee was therefore rejected by the Tribunal. We do not find any merit in the contention raised by the assessee. The moment the amount of debt was utilised for the purpose of acquiring shares of the debtor company, thereafter, there was no question of any notional interest due on the amount of advance or debt as the case may be. We are of the view that the Tribunal was fully justified in rejecting the claim of the assessee. In the light of the above discussion, we answer the question in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1997 (3) TMI 59 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Income, Sales Tax Refund, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... he Electricity Board and this was a finding of fact. There was no finding that the Electricity Board had given up its claim to this money. The amount was not, therefore, assessable as a trading receipt in the hands of the assessee. A combined reading of the decisions cited supra would go to show that refund of sales tax in the hands of the assessee herein is liable to be paid back on account of the subsequent Ordinance passed by the Government, validating the levy of sales tax, especially when the assessee lost its case before the Supreme Court. Inasmuch as still the liability is existing for payment of sales tax, section 41(1) of the Act cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. Therefore, the Tribunal was not correct in coming to the conclusion that the sales tax refund in the hands of the assessee is taxable under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. No costs
-
1997 (3) TMI 58 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Fair Market Value, Movable Property, Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government ... ... ... ... ..... transaction stated in the order in relation to the property at No. 47, 1st Main Road, or that the property was in any way not comparable to the property of the owner. Even ignoring the transactions relating to that property at No. 47, 1st Main Road, on the basis of the comparison made by the authority between the petitioner s plot and that of the adjoining plot, the two being comparable, the finding of the authority on such comparison that there had been substantial under-valuation by the petitioner which was in excess of 15 per cent. of the market value cannot in any way be said to be vitiated on account of reference made to two other properties with a view to underscore that conclusion. The petitioners have failed to rebut the presumption that arose as a consequence, that such under-valuation was with intent to evade the payment of tax properly payable on the market value. All the contentions urged for the petitioners thus fail and the petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
....
|
