|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 371 of 371 Records
-
1991 (4) TMI 11
The High Court of Madras delivered a judgment on a tax case reference under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held that the cost of plant and machinery could not be reduced by the subsidy received by the assessee-company for computing depreciation and investment allowance. The decision was based on a previous case and ruled in favor of the assessee-company. No costs were awarded.
-
1991 (4) TMI 10
Issues Involved:
1. Allowability of loss incurred due to fluctuation of exchange rates in remittance of profit.
2. Allowability of loss incurred in remittance of dividend.
3. Computation of long-term capital gains arising out of the transfer of original shares and the cost of acquisition of original and bonus shares.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Allowability of Loss Incurred Due to Fluctuation of Exchange Rates in Remittance of Profit:
The first issue relates to the assessee's claim of Rs. 1,71,066 as a loss due to exchange rate fluctuations while remitting profits from India to its UK office. The Tribunal disallowed this claim, stating that the loss was not incurred for the purpose of earning income and was not laid out for the purpose of the business. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. [1979] 116 ITR 1 (SC), which distinguished between losses on revenue account and capital account. The Tribunal concluded that the remitted surplus funds did not constitute a trading asset or circulating capital and were intended for distribution as dividends or investment outside India. Consequently, the loss was not considered a trading loss or incidental to business operations. The High Court, following its earlier decision in Goodriche Group Ltd. (No. 1) v. CIT [1993] 201 ITR 261, answered the first question in the negative and in favor of the assessee, thereby disallowing the deduction.
2. Allowability of Loss Incurred in Remittance of Dividend:
The second issue pertains to the assessee's claim of Rs. 368 as a loss due to exchange rate fluctuations while remitting dividends from India to the UK. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal rejected this claim on the same grounds as the remittance of profits. The High Court applied the same principle, determining that the loss suffered due to exchange rate fluctuations on remittance of dividends was not allowable as a deduction. Thus, the second question was also answered in the negative and in favor of the assessee.
3. Computation of Long-Term Capital Gains and Cost of Acquisition of Original and Bonus Shares:
The third issue involves the computation of long-term capital gains from the transfer of original shares and the cost of acquisition of original and bonus shares. The assessee-company acquired 1,200 equity shares of Duncan Bros. and Co. Ltd. and was later allotted bonus shares. The entire block of shares was sold, and the assessee contended that the cost of original shares should be taken as the actual cost and the cost of bonus shares should be determined by spreading the cost of original shares over both original and bonus shares. The Tribunal, upholding the decisions of the lower authorities, rejected this method.
The High Court referenced several precedents, including CIT v. Gold Mohore Investment Co. Ltd. [1968] 68 ITR 213 (SC), Dalmia Investment Co. Ltd. [1964] 52 ITR 567 (SC), and Smt. Protima Roy [1982] 138 ITR 536 (Cal), which established that the cost of original shares should be spread over the original and bonus shares collectively to determine the average price. The High Court concluded that the method adopted by the lower authorities and upheld by the Tribunal was correct. Therefore, the third question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the Revenue.
Conclusion:
The High Court ruled:
1. The loss incurred due to exchange rate fluctuations in remittance of profit is not an allowable deduction.
2. The loss incurred in remittance of dividends is not an allowable deduction.
3. The cost of acquisition of original shares should be spread over both original and bonus shares for computing long-term capital gains.
-
1991 (4) TMI 9
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Commissioner of Wealth-tax could revise the assessment based on subsequent sale of the property.
2. Whether the Commissioner indicated any material to show the Wealth-tax Officer's assessments were erroneous.
3. Determination of the market value of the property under section 7(1) of the Wealth-tax Act read with rule IBB.
4. The impact of the property's rental income on its valuation.
5. Restrictions on the property affecting its market value.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Revision of Assessment Based on Subsequent Sale:
The primary issue was whether the Commissioner of Wealth-tax could revise the assessment based on the subsequent sale of the property for Rs. 45 lakhs in 1982. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to consider subsequent events that were not part of the original assessment records. The Tribunal held that the Commissioner must confine himself to the records available at the time of the original assessment.
2. Indication of Erroneous Assessments:
The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner did not provide any material evidence to show that the assessments made by the Wealth-tax Officer were erroneous. The Tribunal emphasized that the Commissioner must demonstrate that the orders were erroneous based on the records available during the assessment years in question.
3. Market Value Determination Under Section 7(1) and Rule IBB:
The Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that the market value of the property should be determined under section 7(1) of the Wealth-tax Act read with rule IBB. It was noted that the property was a residential building during the relevant years, and if rule IBB was applied, the value would not exceed the amount disclosed by the assessee. The Tribunal found that the assessee had correctly capitalized the municipal value by adopting a multiplier of 16.
4. Impact of Rental Income on Valuation:
The Tribunal considered the property's rental income for the assessment year 1982-83, where it was let out for Rs. 3,000 per month. The assessee's share in the annual value was determined at Rs. 4,980 net. The Tribunal held that if this value was capitalized using a fair multiplier, it would align with the value declared by the assessee. Thus, the assessments could not be deemed erroneous based on this ground.
5. Restrictions on Property Affecting Market Value:
The Tribunal acknowledged the restrictions on the property, including its acquisition by CMDA for road widening and the limitation that it could only be sold to an institution. These factors were crucial in determining the market value prior to its sale. The Tribunal found that these restrictions justified the valuation declared by the assessee and that the Commissioner failed to consider these encumbrances adequately.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal found no material evidence to support the Commissioner's claim that the Wealth-tax Officer's assessments were erroneous. The market value was correctly determined under the appropriate legal provisions, and the rental income and property restrictions were duly considered. Consequently, the Tribunal's decision was upheld, favoring the assessee, and the question of law was answered in the affirmative.
-
1991 (4) TMI 8
The High Court of Allahabad dismissed three Criminal Appeals related to non-submission of income tax returns. The court found no wilful default by the respondents and upheld the Sessions judge's decision that more time should have been allowed for filing the returns. The appeals were therefore dismissed.
-
1991 (4) TMI 7
Issues Involved: Determination of whether the reassessments made under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1956-57 to 1958-59 were barred by limitation.
Summary:
The assessee, a resident company, challenged the assessments completed by the Income-tax Officer under section 147(a) for the years 1956-57 to 1958-59, claiming they were time-barred under section 153(2). The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal held that the assessments were completed within the time limit.
The assessee contended that the assessments were barred by limitation due to various periods of stay and proceedings. The High Court analyzed the timeline of events, including court stays and directions from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, to determine the exclusion periods under Explanation 1 of section 153.
The High Court concluded that the assessments were completed well within time, considering the exclusion periods due to court stays and proceedings. The total excluded period was calculated to be 15 years and 139 days, allowing the assessments to be completed by August 17, 1984, which was well within the actual completion date of October 15, 1980.
The Court ruled in favor of the Revenue, affirming that the assessments were not barred by limitation. The judgment was unanimous, with both Judges concurring on the decision.
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the assessee's claim, stating that the reassessments for the years in question were completed within the statutory time limit, and no costs were awarded in the matter.
-
1991 (4) TMI 6
Issues:
1. Determination of status for taxation purposes.
2. Revisional authority's power to revise orders within the prescribed period.
Analysis:
1. Determination of Status for Taxation Purposes:
The case involved a dispute regarding the status of the assessee for taxation purposes under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. The assessee had inherited lands from his father and uncle, and claimed that the lands obtained from his father should be treated as belonging to the Hindu undivided family, while the lands inherited from his uncle should be assessed in his individual capacity. The Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax had held that the assessee's status was determined as an individual due to his past actions of treating all lands as his individual holdings. However, the High Court disagreed with this reasoning. The court cited previous judgments of the apex court, emphasizing that the status of a Hindu undivided family is determined by how the properties were obtained, not the number of male members. Therefore, the court ruled that the lands obtained from the father should be treated as properties of the Hindu undivided family, while other properties should be assessed in the individual capacity. The court set aside the Commissioner's findings on this issue.
2. Revisional Authority's Power to Revise Orders Within the Prescribed Period:
The assessee argued that the revisional authority's power to revise orders should be exercised within five years of the end of the relevant year, as per section 35 of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act. The assessee relied on a previous court decision to support this argument. However, the High Court rejected this contention, stating that the specific period of limitation under section 34 for revisional powers should not be overridden by the general provisions of section 35. The court clarified that if the revisional authority has the power to revise an order, there is no need to apply the limitation period under section 35. Therefore, the court dismissed the argument regarding the revisional authority's power to revise orders within the prescribed period.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the determination of status for taxation purposes, directing separate assessments for lands belonging to the Hindu undivided family and individual holdings. The court also clarified the application of the revisional authority's power to revise orders within the specified period, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the specific provisions of the law.
-
1991 (4) TMI 5
Issues:
Interpretation of the term 'contingency reserve' for computing the capital base under the Surtax Act.
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the treatment of a 'contingency reserve' in the computation of the capital base under the Surtax Act. The Income-tax Officer disallowed the claim made by the assessee, stating that the reserve was created towards a known liability but the quantum was unascertained, and it was used to make bonus payments. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the claim, emphasizing that the reserve was not earmarked for any specific purpose. The Appellate Tribunal found that the reserve was created to meet an unforeseen eventuality, not a known liability, and hence should be treated as a reserve, not a provision.
In the judgment, the court considered the difference between a provision and a reserve as explained in previous Supreme Court decisions. It was highlighted that a provision is a charge against profits, while a reserve is an appropriation of profits to form part of the capital employed in the business. The court emphasized that the intention and purpose behind the appropriation must be considered to determine whether an amount constitutes a reserve or a provision. The court also referred to a Calcutta High Court decision, stating that an amount set aside to meet a known liability would be a provision, while an amount set aside for an unknown contingency would be a reserve.
The court concluded that the 'contingency reserve' in question was created to meet an unknown liability, not a known liability like bonus payments. The reserve was set apart as a prudent measure to provide for an unforeseen eventuality, aligning with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court. As the reserve was not intended for a specific known liability, it was deemed to be a reserve and not a provision. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, affirming that the amount in the contingency reserve should be considered in computing the capital base under the Surtax Act.
The judgment was a significant clarification on the distinction between provisions and reserves in the context of creating reserves for unknown contingencies. It highlighted the importance of the intention behind creating such reserves and provided guidance on how to categorize them based on their purpose and foreseeability of the liability they aim to address.
-
1991 (4) TMI 4
Issues Involved:
1. Ownership of the steel cores.
2. Classification of expenditure for purchasing new steel cores as capital or revenue expenditure.
3. Treatment of the forfeited deposits for non-return of steel cores.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Ownership of the Steel Cores:
The Tribunal found that the assessee-company was the real owner of the steel cores. This conclusion was based on several facts: the cores were not separately charged for by the mills when sold to Becker Gray, nor did Becker Gray charge W.L.F. separately for the cores. In their Customs declaration, Becker Gray stated that the cores were returnable. The returned cores were shipped back to India and reused by the respective mills. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide sufficient documentary or oral evidence to prove that the steel cores were sold to Becker Gray. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the property in the steel cores did not pass from the assessee to Becker Gray. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, as it was based on facts and evidence.
2. Classification of Expenditure for Purchasing New Steel Cores:
The Income-tax Officer treated the expenditure for purchasing new steel cores as capital expenditure, adding Rs. 4,89,709 to the assessee's account. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this addition but allowed depreciation. The Tribunal agreed with the tax authorities, stating that the steel cores were analogous to metal gas cylinders used in gaseous product industries. The Tribunal observed that steel cores could be reused multiple times and thus could not be considered consumable stores. The Tribunal's finding that the expenditure for purchasing new steel cores was capital in nature was based on the inherent quality of steel cores being used repeatedly. This decision was also upheld by the High Court.
3. Treatment of the Forfeited Deposits for Non-return of Steel Cores:
The Income-tax Officer added Rs. 90,000 to the assessee's income, representing the assessee's share of forfeited deposits due to the non-return of steel cores by customers. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this addition. The Tribunal, however, held that since the steel cores were considered capital assets, the forfeited deposits should be treated as capital receipts and not revenue in nature. The High Court directed the Tribunal to refer the question of whether the Rs. 90,000 should be treated as capital or revenue. The Tribunal's decision to treat the forfeited deposits as capital receipts was based on the classification of steel cores as capital assets. This decision was also upheld by the High Court.
Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's findings on all issues. The assessee was deemed the real owner of the steel cores, the expenditure for purchasing new steel cores was classified as capital expenditure, and the forfeited deposits for non-return of steel cores were treated as capital receipts. The questions were answered in favor of the Revenue, affirming the Tribunal's decisions.
-
1991 (4) TMI 3
Issues:
Assessment of a members' club as an individual for wealth-tax purposes.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to the assessment of a members' club, Trivandrum Club, Thiruvananthapuram, under the Wealth-tax Act. The Wealth-tax Officer initially treated the club as an individual and imposed wealth-tax for the assessment years 1970-71 to 1979-80. However, on appeal, the Commissioner of Wealth-tax (Appeals) ruled that the club should be considered an association of persons and therefore not taxable under the Wealth-tax Act, leading to the cancellation of the assessment. Subsequently, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision. The Tribunal's stance was consistent with a previous decision regarding Sreemulam Club, where it was established that a club cannot be assessed as an individual but should be viewed as an association of persons, which is not subject to wealth-tax.
The key question in this case revolved around whether the club should be assessed as an individual or as an association of persons for wealth-tax purposes. The court referred to a prior decision related to Mulam Club, where it was determined that assets of an association of persons were not chargeable under the Wealth-tax Act before the introduction of section 21AA. Since the assessment years in question predated the applicability of section 21AA, the Revenue could not rely on it to assess wealth-tax for those years. The court emphasized that there was no provision in the Wealth-tax Act prior to the introduction of section 21AA that categorized an association of persons as an individual for tax purposes.
The Revenue argued that the club should be considered a trust based on the club's rules and bye-laws, which vested all properties in trustees. Citing relevant case law, the court rejected this argument, stating that just because trustees manage the club's assets does not automatically make the club an individual entity. The court highlighted that in unincorporated members' clubs, trustees are appointed to manage assets on behalf of members, who collectively hold the club's properties and funds. Individual members' interests are only determinable upon dissolution. Therefore, designating the club as a trust and vesting properties in members as trustees did not alter its classification as an association of persons.
In conclusion, the court affirmed that the members' club in question should be treated as an association of persons and not an individual entity for wealth-tax assessment purposes. The Appellate Tribunal's decision to exempt the club from wealth-tax was deemed appropriate. The judgment favored the assessee club and ruled against the Revenue. The court directed the forwarding of the judgment to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench for further action.
-
1991 (4) TMI 2
Two alternatives are open under the scheme of the legislation that Union of India through the appropriate authority could buy the property, or in the event of its decision not to buy, it has to issue a "No objection certificate" leaving it open to the parties to deal with the property
-
1991 (4) TMI 1
HUF - income from property as well as hire rent and commission - Whether income from properties purported to have been transferred to the trust was not assessable in the hands of the assessee-family - Whether, on a proper construction of the lease deeds the sum of ₹ 10,000 is the income of the assessee and not that of Chhadami Lal Jain Degree College - Whether the income from properties purported to have been transferred to Trust was not assessable in the hands of the assessee-family
....
|
9911796707
