|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 418 Records
-
1999 (4) TMI 58 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Income, Rental Income, Business Expenditure, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... to prove that he owned that flat and no categorical finding is there to this effect. Therefore, we do not agree with the authorities below to allow the depreciation to the assessee on this flat which admittedly stands in the name of the director. The facts are not properly enquired into at any stage by the authorities below. Therefore, we answer question No. 3 so far as the maintenance allowance is concerned in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue, but so far as the dispute relating to depreciation allowance is concerned, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and send the matter back to the Assessing Officer to make further enquiries to find out whether the flat is owned by the assessee. If the assessee fails to prove it, the assessee is not entitled for depreciation allowance. The reference application is disposed of with the above observations. All parties to act on a xeroxed signed copy of this dictated order upon usual undertaking.
-
1999 (4) TMI 57 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, Rectification Of Mistakes, Notice, Scope Of Powers ... ... ... ... ..... e date of making an order, is not acceptable to Department, would still be governed by the scheme in view of the decision of the Delhi High Court referred to above and accepted by the Union of India. The impugned order of the designated authority also will have to be quashed, as the same is solely founded on the fact that no dispute is pending as on the date of making order because of orders under section 154 and rejection of the revision application on February 26, 1999, though the facts disclosed that the reduced sum of tax was never accepted by the Revenue. Accordingly, the order of the second respondent, the Assessing Officer dated February 26, 1999, under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, as well as the order of the Commissioner designated authority dated February 26, 1999, to the extent it rejects the declaration under the KVSS as having become infructuous are set aside and the designated authority is directed to consider the declaration afresh in accordance with law.
-
1999 (4) TMI 56 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... f the hundi loans by establishing the identity of the creditors, the capacity of the creditors to advance the hundi loans and the genuineness of the transaction, it cannot be said that the finding of the Tribunal is perverse. On the given facts, the only conclusion the authorities below can be arrived at is that the hundi loans are non-genuine and rightly added in the income of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has rightly carried out the direction of the Tribunal that is to decide the issue on the merits regarding the genuineness of the hundi loans. In view of all these facts stated and the law referred to, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative that is in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. And for question No. 2 also we answer in the negative that is in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. All parties to act on a signed copy of the operative portion of this judgment upon usual undertaking. PRABIR KUMAR SAMANTA J.---I agree.
-
1999 (4) TMI 55 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... l does not arise at all at this stage. Till the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act has not been allowed, the appeal, revision or for that matter reference shall be taken as non est. The proviso to section 264 of the Act of 1961 is pari materia to section 5 of the Limitation Act. When the admitted facts in this case are that the application for condonation which was filed along with the application for revision under section 264 of the Act of 1961 has been rejected, the revisional application shall be treated as non est and when the revisional application is non est, there cannot be any question of pendency of the revisional application on January 29, 1999, when the declaration under the Scheme of 1998, has been filed by the assessee. In view of those undisputed facts of the case and the case law referred to, we do not find any force in this appeal. Consequently, the appeal as well as the application are dismissed in limine. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance, Higher Rate ... ... ... ... ..... f furnishing the certificate along with the return of income is directory. If the assessee furnishes the same to the Assessing Officer before the completion of the assessment and offers a satisfactory explanation for his failure to furnish the same along with his return of income, the Income-tax Officer may consider the same and if he is satisfied with the explanation, he may accept the same and allow the claim of the assessee of investment allowance at higher rate under section 32A(2B) of the Act. In view of the above legal position, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to consider the claim of the assessee for investment allowance at a higher rate under section 32A(2B)(ii) of the Act on the basis of the certificate filed in the course of the assessment proceedings. Question No. 1 is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, that is in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 53 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Supreme Court, Charitable Trust, Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ted that the question is of general importance and there is no binding decision of the Supreme Court on the question sought to be raised before this court. It is also submitted that there are no decisions of other High Courts on this question. Since we find that what is involved is the scope of Explanation 2 to section 13 of the Act, we certify that these cases are fit ones for appeal to the Supreme Court. We issue the certificates prayed for under section 261 of the Income-tax Act.
-
1999 (4) TMI 52 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Representative Assessee, Recovery Of Tax, Textile Mill ... ... ... ... ..... amount of compensation provided for in that Act was the only amount which the creditors of the undertaking of the nationalised mill could look to for recovery of such part of the dues, as it was permissible for them to claim from out of that fund from the Commissioner of Payments appointed under that Act. Any arrears of income-tax for the period during which the company was under the authorised controller could only have been recovered from out of the compensation provided for under the Nationalisation Act, and not by seeking to treat the authorised controller as being liable for the payment of taxes, which were due from the company, but which had remained unpaid. All the questions referred to us, which arise out of the assessment proceedings against the Tamil Nadu Textile Corporation Limited for the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76 are, therefore, answered against the Revenue, and in favour of the assessee. The assessee shall be entitled to costs in the sum of Rs. 2,500.
-
1999 (4) TMI 51 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Passing Of Property, Retirement Of Partner ... ... ... ... ..... imputed to the agreeing partners. There is no dispute also that non-charging of share in the goodwill is solely due to the term in the deed of partnership. Finding has been recorded by the Controller of Estate Duty in his appellate order that retirement was necessitated due to the sickness and physical disability of the retired partner. Thus even without deciding but assuming that there was a gift in favour of the remaining partners by the retiring partner on the date of her retirement, it being in accordance with the already stipulated term of the partnership deed, and that retirement being necessitated due to physical disability, it was not lacking in bona fides so as to fall within the purview of section 9. We therefore answer question No. 2, in the affirmative, though for reasons different from those that prevailed with the Tribunal, that is to say, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference accordingly stands disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 50 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Company, Disallowance Of Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... court held that the contribution made to a public welfare fund was an allowable expenditure is not quite applicable to the facts of this case and hence it is not necessary to deal with the decision of the Supreme Court. We do not agree with the contention of learned counsel for the Revenue that there is a personal benefit involved in the expenditure and therefore the expenditure should be disallowed as a business expenditure. We hold that in so far as the company is concerned, the company had incurred the expenditure with the object of promoting its business prospects and improve its business relationship and, therefore, the expenditure by way of subscription to the clubs is an allowable expenditure. It is not possible to take a narrow or a rigid view on the question of allowability of business expenditure. Accordingly, we answer the third question of law in the affirmative and against the Revenue. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 49 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Writ, Principles Of Natural Justice, Reference, Appellate Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... n. However, when this court finds that there is a miscarriage of justice and the procedure adopted by the Appellate Tribunal which is the final fact-finding authority, is erroneous resulting in gross violation of principles of natural justice in passing of the order which shocks the conscience of the court, I am of the view, this court cannot remain a mute spectator. In my view, this court in such a situation can and should interfere to meet the ends of justice. I am therefore inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal and, accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Tribunal to consider the case afresh on the merits of the matter, after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. The writ petition is allowed. Rule nisi is made absolute. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P. No. 21069 of 1998 is dismissed.
-
1999 (4) TMI 48 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Offence And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... respondents, submitted that in the fitness of things the trial court alone would be in a better position to appreciate the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners, especially in view of the judgment of this court passed in the matter of Harikishan s case 1996 217 ITR 582. Thus, considering the matter, I deem it fit to remand the matter to the trial court for passing a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties, in the light of the judgment passed in the matter of Harikishan s case 1996 217 ITR 582 (MP), and also keeping in mind the fact that the provisions of section 276E of the Income-tax Act stood deleted from the statute book from April 1, 1989. Since, the matter is old, the trial court is expected to pass an appropriate order at an early date. The parties agree that they would appear before the trial court on April 22, 1999, for further participation in the matter. With these observations, this revision stands finally disposed of.
-
1999 (4) TMI 47 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Powers Of Tribunal, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... 0, 1990, finding that factual error had crept in the order. It, therefore, recalled its first order dated November 30, 1990, and directed rehearing of the appeal. The Revenue felt aggrieved and filed an application under section 256(2) asking the Tribunal to refer the abovestated questions for opinion of this court, The Tribunal found that questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 did not arise out of its order and that question No. 1 was not referable because it was based on appreciation of facts on record. The Revenue has now filed this application under section 256(2) for directing the Tribunal to refer these questions for opinion of this court. Heard learned counsel and examined the record. Nothing was canvassed or pointed out by the Revenue s counsel to show that questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 did arise from the Tribunal s order dated November 30, 1990, or that question No. 1 for that matter gave rise to the question of law. Therefore, we find no merit in this application which is rejected.
-
1999 (4) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Property, Deductions ... ... ... ... ..... provided for in section 24 are required to be made from out of the amount ascertained as the annual value under section 23(1)(a) or 23(1)(b) as reduced by the amounts referred to in the second proviso. Section 24 itself does not provide that the result of the computation can never be a loss or that the loss is to be ignored. Section 24 is not made subject to the second proviso to section 23(1). The words of limitation referred to in that proviso are not to be regarded as being part of section 24. The limitation with regard to the extent of the deduction of the annual value provided for in the second proviso to section 23(1) is only with reference to the annual value determined under section 23(1)(a) or 23(1)(b) and it has no relevance whatever for determining the extent of deductions provided for under section 24 of the Act. The Tribunal is right in the view that it took. The questions referred to us are, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1999 (4) TMI 45 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure, Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... have already held that the seized amount cannot be appropriated or applied towards any other liability until an order is made by the Income-tax Officer under section 132(5). The Tribunal has also not considered that the seizure is not a voluntary payment. The Tribunal has also not considered that the Income-tax Officer is entitled to retain the amounts under the authority of law and is required to return the excess amount forthwith under section 132(5) and to apply the retained amount under the provisions of section 132B of the Income-tax Act. The learned members have simply observed that because the money was lying with the Department, it could not be held that the assessee defaulted in payment of the taxes. In the opinion of this court, the approach of the Tribunal is not correct. In the premises aforesaid, I am of the opinion that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. The petitions deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 44 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Firm, Precedent, Rate Of Tax ... ... ... ... ..... word if by itself makes no sense. In our opinion, the said decision has no application to the interpretation to be placed on section 182(3) of the Act of 1961. We, therefore, hold that on the interpretation of section 182(3) of the Act of 1961, for the purpose of determination of tax payable by the firm in respect of the share income derived by a non-resident partner, his share income alone should be considered and the tax determined accordingly and his income from other sources would not come for consideration for the purpose of determination of the tax payable by the firm in respect of the share income derived by a non-resident partner. Accordingly, we approve the decision in CIT v. Srinivas and Co. 1996 219 ITR 636 (Mad). In the result, we answer the first common question of law referred to us in Tax Cases Nos. 157 to 160 of 1984 and the sole common question in Tax Cases Nos. 366 and 367 of 1984, in the three tax cases in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 43 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Advertisement Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... tly disallowed by the Tribunal ? It appears that the assessee was an agent/dealer engaged in the sale of bidis . He said to have incurred some advertisement expenditure which was disallowed on the ground that he was not required to do so being the sub-agent/dealer. After his plea was turned down by the forums including the Tribunal, he applied for seeking reference under section 256(1) which was also rejected. That is how he filed this application under section 256(2) contending that once it was accepted by the Revenue that he had incurred the requisite expenditure on advertisement, it was not for the Revenue to proceed further and examine whether he had rightly or wrongly done so. It is also submitted that the issue was covered by some Supreme Court judgment and despite that his application for reference was rejected. It appears that the questions stated deserve examination. The Tribunal is accordingly required to submit the statement of this case for opinion by this court.
-
1999 (4) TMI 42 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... any. The mere fact that the correct calculation of interest comes to Rs. 44,616 as stipulated in the pronote would not render that payment of interest of Rs. 67,790 false. The payment of interest has been noted in the accounts of Mohd. Ismail and Company on five different dates and not on a single date. Simply because the assessee s accounts do not reveal the receipt of interest, it cannot be concluded that there was no receipt of any interest by the assessee-company. The entries in the account books of Mohd. Ismail and Company would suffice to satisfy with regard to receipt of interest of Rs. 67,790 by the assessee. So the receipt of interest of Rs. 67,790 is includible in the assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1980-81. The Tribunal has committed an error in deleting the addition of interest of Rs. 67,790 made by the Income-tax Officer in the assessment of the assessee. We answer both the questions in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 41 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Valuation Of Assets ... ... ... ... ..... uniformity in valuation and to avoid vagaries and disparities resulting from application of different modes of valuation in different cases where the nature of the property is similar. Rule 1BB partakes of the character of a rule of evidence. It deems the market value to be the one arrived at on the application of a particular method of valuation which is also one of the recognised and accepted methods. The rule is procedural and not substantive and is applicable to all proceedings pending on April 1, 1979, when the rule came into force. The Commissioner took the view that section 40 of the Finance Act did not exclude the operation of rule 1BB which was confirmed by the Tribunal. The view taken by the Tribunal and the Commissioner is in conformity with the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision cited supra. Hence, we do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal. We answer both the questions in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 40 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution, Law Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... vitiated. He has also placed reliance on a judgment of the learned single judge of this court, reported in Harikishan v. Union of India 1996 217 ITR 582, in which, it has been clearly held that prosecution launched for commission of an offence under section 276E of the Act after April 1, 1989, would not be maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent, was not able to show any contrary view to this court. Even otherwise, as the facts stand, it cannot be disputed in this case, that the petitioners were prosecuted for commission of an offence, which had stood deleted from the statute book on the date when their prosecution was launched. Thus, in the considered opinion of this court, the whole proceedings themselves were vitiated. In this view of the matter, the judgments of the two courts below are hereby set aside and quashed. The amount of fine is directed to be refunded back to the petitioners on its due verification. The revision is allowed to the extent mentioned above.
-
1999 (4) TMI 39 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Cost Of Acquisition ... ... ... ... ..... ts received on the distribution of assets on the liquidation of a company, and to the assets under a transfer to a revocable or an irrevocable trust, etc. 6. In a partition, the consideration for the partition is the mutual relinquishment the rights of the parties in the joint family properties in which each has share, the fact that the daughters have a right to maintenance and marriage expenses and would have been entitled to a share at a partition does not render the value of the shares allotted to them under a settlement deed, the price for which they had sold or relinquished their rights over the properties of the family. The family settlement in this context is analogus to a partition. It, is the cost to the previous owner that is to be taken into account as the cost of acquisition of shares and not the amounts mentioned in the family settlement deed by the settlor. 7. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
....
|
