|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 361 to 380 of 387 Records
-
1999 (5) TMI 28 - SUPREME COURT
Whether there is transfer of any immovable property under the settlement agreement?
Held that:- Mere look at the agreement shows that it is not an agreement for transfer as understood in clause (a) of section 269UA of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act. The settlement agreement also does not stipulate exchange of any immovable property. It rather divides equally businesses and properties between Harendra and Mukesh. It is difficult to appreciate the arguments of Mr. Ganesh as to how in the present case, there is transfer of any immovable property under the settlement agreement. It appears to us that the bone of contention is a flat in Urvashi building in Mumbai which formed part of B+A1 of Mukesh . It was not disputed before us that for this the appellants did execute a gift deed in favour of the respondents on advice received but no steps were taken to complete the transaction as, it appears, relations soured. This would also show that the settlement agreement on the award did not require filing of any declaration under Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act. Moreover, in our view in the case of a foreign award, the provisions of Chapter XX-C of the Income-tax Act are not attracted. It was said that under Chapter XX-C a net has been thrown wide to bring within its purview all sorts of immovable properties but that net is not wide enough to cover a foreign award covering businesses and properties both in India and in a foreign country. The apprehension of Mr. Ganesh that if we give this interpretation a method can be found by the parties to escape the rigour of Chapter XX-C knocking at the very provision of law which strikes at the root of black money rampant in the sale and purchase of immovable property. If that is so, the Legislature can always step into block the gap if it finds there is any escapement of revenue. We are also of the view that a foreign award under the Foreign Awards Act does not require registration under the Registration Act.
A decree or order of a court does not require registration under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Registration Act. This is the effect of clause (vi) of sub-section (2) of section 17. Earlier under this clause (vi) before its amendment in 1929 even an award did not require registration. However, after omission of the words "and any award" an award creating or declaring right or interest in immovable property of the value of ₹ 100 would require registration. But then that award would be an award under the Arbitration Act, 1940, and certainly not a foreign award. Appeal dismissed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 27 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Income From House Property, Deduction, Interpretation OF STATUTES ... ... ... ... ..... n the High Court, it must, however, appear that the Tribunal genuinely addressed its mind and considered the evidence covering all the essentials before arriving at its conclusions, and the decision of the Tribunal must be based on some evidence to support the finding. In a reference under section 256 of the Act of 1961, the High Court can indubitably look/examine as to whether the conclusion reached by the Tribunal was such that a reasonable person properly instructed in law could have arrived at. The finding of fact is based on the family partition that took place according to the settlement deed. This finding of fact reached by the Tribunal is conclusive. The finding as to whether the settlement was voluntary or involuntary will depend on the interpretation and inference to be drawn from the deed of settlement-which would be a finding relating to law and not fact. The reference is answered accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (5) TMI 26 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... finding as on the date of declaration a revision in respect of the order determining the tax demand out of which the whole or part sum remains unpaid, is pending. Whether the revision has merit or will be successful, is not his domain. That is the domain. of the revising authority. That jurisdiction he may not be called upon to exercise if on determining the amount payable under the scheme the assessee deposits the same within the time prescribed. Because in such event the revision is deemed to be withdrawn under section 90(4) of the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1998. An authority discharging both the functions cannot by deciding a pending revision on merit and reflect that order on merit while acting as designated authority. This is precisely what has been done in the present case. We, therefore, allow this petition, quash the order at annexure A, dated February 26, 1999, and direct the respondent to decide the said declaration afresh in accordance with law. Notice is discharged.
-
1999 (5) TMI 25 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... some other conclusion may also be possible, on that ground, it cannot be said that the finding given by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal is perverse. When the finding of fact is not perverse, this court should not interfere with the question which is based on the finding of fact. Consequently, we hold that no case is made out to interfere in the concurrent finding of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal regarding genuineness of loss. Accordingly, we answer question No. 1, i.e., whether the finding of the Tribunal is based on the materials on record, is in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 2 pertains to whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not holding that the alleged loss of Rs. 17,56,071 was nothing but cooked up affairs to reduce the total income of the assessee. We answer this question also in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1999 (5) TMI 23 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, Effect, Arrears, Interest Liability ... ... ... ... ..... ount paid under section 140A has to be adjusted towards tax. The amount has been paid admittedly under section 140A and the Explanation to section 140A is clear in requiring adjustment of the payment first towards interest liability. Even in the Budget Speech, the contention raised by the petitioner has not been elaborated, explained or stated. It is pointed out that, if the payment made under section 140A is adjusted towards interest, then such adjustment would be disadvantageous in comparison to the assessee who has not paid the tax at all. There may be anomalies or the Scheme may be more beneficial to the greater defaulter than to the honest taxpayer or the taxpayer who has complied with the provisions but the Scheme has to be read as it is. In these circumstances, I do not consider that any case for interference is made out. The contention that the payment under section 140A should be treated towards the tax liability has no force. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 22 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Embezzlement ... ... ... ... ..... ubmitted that the question of maintainability of the revision petition is not examined by the Commissioner and that the assessee has not filed a valid revision. I have considered over the matter. At this stage, I will not examine the question of maintainability of revision which has to be examined by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Suffice it to observe the observation that the embezzlement related to earlier year, cannot be claimed in the subsequent year, is contrary to the observations of the apex court. The petitioner was made aware of the audit report for the loss in the assessment year 1986-87 and it is on the said amount becoming irrecoverable that a loss could be claimed. In these circumstances, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax is set aside. It is directed that the Commissioner would consider the entire matter afresh including the maintainability of revision and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
1999 (5) TMI 21 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Total Income, Inclusions, Income From House Property, Owner ... ... ... ... ..... to question No. 3 would also be same as in Income-tax Reference No. 8 of 1996. At this stage Income-tax Reference No. 2 of 1997 needs to be adverted to. Question No. 1 did not arise as was conceded by counsel for the parties during the course of arguments. As regards question No. 2, it is held in the light of our decision to question No. 1 in Income-tax Reference No. 8 of 1996 that the salary income of the wife is includible in the assessment of the husband-assessee under section 64(1)(ii) of the Act and, therefore, it stands answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. As regards the decision of Income-tax Reference No. 7 of 1997 is concerned, all these four questions would stand answered as per the decision in Income-tax Reference No. 8 of 1996. In other words, the decision in question No. 1 would stand answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Questions Nos. 2, 3 and 4 would stand answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1999 (5) TMI 20 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Refund, Condition Precedent, Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... timation makes it clear that the Commissioner of Income-tax informed the petitioner about the adjustment of the refundable amount towards the tax demand. This is not a prior intimation about the proposed action. This is a simultaneous intimation at the time of making the adjustment. Thus, it does not fulfil the third condition of section 245 of the Act. In the result, both the writ petitions are allowed. The action of the Assessing Officer in setting off the amount found refundable to the petitioner against the amount of tax payable by it is held to be unsustainable in law. Communication dated March 26, 1997 (annexure P-4), in C. W. P. No. 7193 of 1997 and communication dated May 5/6, 1997 (annexure P-9), in C. W. P. No. 10273 of 1997 are, therefore, quashed. The respondents are directed to pay to the petitioner the amount found refundable along with interest. Costs are assessed at Rs. 10,000 (rupees ten thousand) in each petition payable by the respondents to the petitioner.
-
1999 (5) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... der the Act, but that cannot and does not make that a tax levied on income under the Act. We see no merit in this alternative contention urged by Sri Kumar to concur with the view expressed by the Tribunal. Following the majority view taken by this court in the case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. 1996 218 ITR 450, we are of the view that interest cannot be treated as tax under section 43B of the Act. While the interest is neither a tax under the Income-tax Act, nor is it known as tax in the common parlance it cannot be treated as tax, especially for the purpose of section 43B of the Act. We find no force in the submission of Shri Ramchandra that once the interest is treated as deemed tax that interest is hit by the provision of section 43B of the Act. In the result, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Similarly, we answer question No. 2 also in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1999 (5) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ught to our notice the memorandum of settlement dated March 26, 1984, placed before the Tribunal and formed part of the paper book which was before the Tribunal. In clause (d) of the settlement, it is stated that both the parties are agreed that Taurus Foundry Pvt. Ltd., shall not insist for the payment of the balance sum of Rs. 7,00,500 and clause (g) of the settlement further provides that Todi Tea Pvt. Ltd., that is, the assessee, shall be entitled to apply to this court for setting aside the said award in so far as it relates to the payment of the said balance amount of Rs. 7,00,500. Considering this fact, it cannot be said that the finding referred in question No. 2 is perverse. Question No. 3 pertains to whether the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing Rs. 10,00,000 as an allowable deduction in the assessment year 1984-85. Considering the matter discussed above, we answer this question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1999 (5) TMI 17 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Exports, Special Deduction, Condition Precedent, Delay In Application ... ... ... ... ..... s it was able to realise the outstanding payment by December 2, 1997. The petitioner has produced on record copies of the telephone bills as well as of the passport of its partner. Having considered the matter, we are of the view that the petitioner has made out sufficient cause for being granted extension of time. The Commissioner of Income-tax has taken a rather hypertechnical view in the matter. Keeping in mind that export proceeds have been realised and the fact that the petitioner has placed on record sufficient material to demonstrate that he was following up the matter regularly, relief to the petitioner should not be denied only on the ground that the petitioner had delayed making the application. The impugned order, rejecting the petitioner s application for extension of time, deserves to be set aside and is, accordingly set aside. The petitioner s application before the Commissioner of Income-tax seeking extension of time till December 2, 1997, shall stand allowed.
-
1999 (5) TMI 16 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Recovery Of Tax, Law Applicable, Effect, Certificate Proceedings, Interpretation Of Taxing Statutes
-
1999 (5) TMI 15 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Offence And Prosecution, Firm, Partner ... ... ... ... ..... tion of that right would be that the prosecution itself would be liable to be quashed on the ground that it is breach of fundamental rights. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case on hand and the law applicable, in my considered opinion, continuance of the prosecution against the applicants will be a sheer wastage of public time and money. I am also of the opinion that continuance of the criminal prosecution against the applicants of the present case amounts to abuse of the process of the court, and that to secure the ends of justice the proceedings of the criminal case pending against the applicants in the trial court deserve to be quashed. In the result this petition filed by the applicants is allowed and Criminal Case No.10 of 1986 and the proceedings thereof instituted against the applicants pending in the court of the ACJM (Economic Offence) Indore, stand quashed, exercising the powers tinder section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code. No orders as to costs.
-
1999 (5) TMI 14 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... ent under s. 143(1)(a), subsequent determination of assessee s claim to relief under regular assessment under s. 143(3) about taxability of arrears of professional fees received during the relevant previous year after the assessee has ceased to carry on profession, cannot be said to be a remedial order resulting in modification of amount of tax already determined by any process of determination on or before the 31st day of March, 1998. It was independent and original determination of tax, penalty or interest payable as per regular assessment which was admittedly framed in January, 1999, much after the due date for claiming the benefit under the KVSS. 37. In view of our aforesaid conclusion, we are of the opinion that the Designated Authority was justified in not acting on the declaration made by the assessee in respect of regular assessment which came into existence only on 18th Jan., 1999. 38. The petition fails and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.
-
1999 (5) TMI 13 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reference, Interest, Delay In Filing Return, Failure To Pay Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... on July 24, 1989, and they voluntarily filed returns of income for the three assessment years on May 18, 1990. Income as declared by the assessees was accepted. By the time the assessees had received interest money from the Government, the period prescribed for filing the return under section 139(4) of the Act for the assessment years 1982-83, 1983-84 and 1984-85 was over. The Tribunal found that, in these circumstances, the charging of interest was not valid. In the light of the facts arising from the order of the Tribunal, it is clear that the Tribunal correctly found that the assessees were not liable to pay interest. They voluntarily filed returns after the order of the High Court granting interest on the enhanced compensation. They also paid tax on that income. They could not anticipate enhancement of compensation and grant of interest thereon prior to the order of the High Court. Therefore, no question of law arises. In the result, the petitions are dismissed in limine.
-
1999 (5) TMI 12 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... clined to accept the view expressed by the Income-tax Officer that the assessee was not entitled to exemption because she purchased interest in the property which was being used by her as her residence prior to the purchase. The Tribunal has rightly set aside the said finding by coming to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to exemption though the said residential house was used by her as her residence along with her family members before interest in the said property was purchased by her so as to avail of exemption under the provisions of section 54 of the Act. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to the benefit of exemption under the provisions of section 54 of the Act. Thus, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1999 (5) TMI 11 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... upon the facts existing at the close of the assessment year and at the time of considering the application it cannot be examined in the light of what is going to happen in pending assessments in respect of which approval certificate was already existing and the assessment of which would not affect the donations made to the trust during that year. Viewed from any angle, we are of view that the order of the Commissioner refusing approval is founded on wholly irrelevant considerations by trenching upon the field of the Assessing Officer by pronouncing on the taxability or non-taxability of any income in respect of the assessments for the past year which are yet to be completed, and does not relate to a period for which approval, if accorded, is to operate. As a result, we allow this special civil application, quash the impugned order and direct the Commissioner of Income-tax to make a fresh order in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (5) TMI 10 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reference, Penalty, Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... with regard to the income from commission. The Assessing Officer determined the income of the assessee on estimate basis, The Tribunal noticed that since the difference in estimates was based on a difference of opinion, there was no positive proof regarding concealment of income by the assessee. The assessee had shown expenditure as also the income from commission on estimate basis. The rates of estimate were varied by the Assessing Officer. These were further varied by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal, therefore, cancelled the penalty on the ground that there was no positive evidence to prove suppression of income. On a consideration of the matter, it is noticed that the assessee had returned income on estimate basis. The Assessing Officer and the Commissioner adopted different estimates. It was, thus, a case of difference of opinion. No referable question of law arises from the order of the Tribunal. The application is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.
-
1999 (5) TMI 9 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reference, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ispute that the deductions were allowed by the Assessing Officer while finalising the assessments originally. The assessee had gone in appeal against certain other additions and disallowances. There was no grievance against the allowances made under sections 80G and 80HH. The appellate orders did not withdraw the allowances already made by the Assessing Officer under sections 80G and 80HH. The Assessing Officer, therefore, wrongly withdrew the allowances already granted by him under sections 80G and 80HH. He was only required to give effect to the appellate orders and not to withdraw the allowances, which were not the subject of appeal. He had only to recompute those allowances, if necessary. From the facts as arising from the order of the Tribunal, it is found that the Tribunal correctly held that no valid reason existed to withdraw the allowances already granted to the assessee. Therefore, no question of law arises. In the result, both the petitions are dismissed. No costs.
-
1999 (5) TMI 8 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance of Expenditure, Company ... ... ... ... ..... decision of the Rajasthan High Court in Gandhi Metals Mills case 1993 200 ITR 252. A discordant note was struck by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Kalani Asbestos (P.) Ltd. 1989 180 ITR 55. On a perusal of the decision, we find that though the court has said the Tribunal was right in holding that disallowance under the provisions of section 40A(8) was not called for in respect of interest paid to the directors and shareholders on their current account, we do not find any discussion or reasons in support of this conclusion. In view of the detailed analysis of the provision, and the conclusion which we have reached, we regret cur inability to persuade ourselves to agree with the view expressed in Kalani Asbestos (P.) Ltd. s case 1989 180 ITR 55 (MP). As a result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative, that is to say, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The assessee has not appeared in spite of service. There shall be no order as to costs.
....
|
