|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 443 Records
-
1996 (2) TMI 63 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment Order ... ... ... ... ..... he Act had no jurisdiction to interfere with that order because that order has not attained finality. It would only attain finality under section 143(2)(b) of the Act after hearing the assessee on an application moved under section 143(2)(a) of the Act. In this context, the period of limitation of two years prescribed under section 153 will not operate against the Assessing Officer as he has already made the assessment within the period prescribed. He will be taking the exercise of assessment again because of the statutory right conferred on the assessee under section 143(2)(a) of the Act. Therefore, the Commissioner could not have revised the inchoate order and the Commissioner can revise the final order only and the final order is yet to be passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3)(b) of the Act. In this view of the matter, the view taken by the Tribunal appears to be justified. Hence, this reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
1996 (2) TMI 62 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Gratuity Liability, Principal Value, Provision For Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... sheet furnished by the assessee contained the correct ascertainment of the gratuity liability on scientific and actuarial method. Hence, we do not find that there is any need or necessity for again requesting the Appellate Controller to verify the same. In the decision in CWT v. S. Ram 1984 147 ITR 278, a Division Bench of this court has held that in ascertaining the partner s interest in a firm under the break-up value method, as provided in the Wealth-tax Rules, provisions for gratuity based on actuarial valuation is to be deducted. In view of the abovesaid decision of this court and in view of the fact that the Department has not contended before the Tribunal that the accountable person has not ascertained the gratuity liability on the basis of actuarial and scientific method, we consider that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal on this aspect. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (2) TMI 61 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Commission Paid To Partner, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... rsies as it must in other spheres of human activity. In view of the position that the Tribunal has taken the same view for subsequent years which has become final and in view of the aforesaid position of law, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of commission paid by the assessee to Messrs. Vallabh Textile and Wool Traders, Ludhiana, a proprietary concern of one of the partners of the assessee-firm was deductible in computing the total income of the assessee and that the provisions of section 40(b) of the Act were not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. This reference application is thus, decided in terms indicated above, but without any orders as to costs. Counsel fee for each side is fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Tribunal for information in accordance with rules.
-
1996 (2) TMI 60 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Quoted Equity Shares, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... molishing this section even for a restricted period. The provision and instruction had different fields to operate in and different purposes to serve. They cannot be labelled as mutually destructive of each other. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Tribunal did not commit any error in taking the view that it took. In the result, we hold that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment completed under section 143(1) could be reopened under section 143(2)(b) otherwise than procedure for scrutiny of five per cent. cases laid down in the Instruction No. 1617, dated May 18, 1985. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the non-applicant/Department and against the applicant/assessee. The reference application is answered accordingly, but without any order as to costs. Counsel fee for each side is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. Transmit a copy of this order to the Tribunal for compliance in accordance with the law.
-
1996 (2) TMI 59 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Quoted Equity Shares, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... , Bhopal. Shri Vyas, learned counsel for the applicant, thus submitted that in view of the aforesaid averment and legal position the questions deserve to be answered in favour of the applicant-Department. Shri Nazir Singh, learned counsel for the non-applicant, was unable to urge anything substantially to take a different view from what is taken in the aforesaid two cases and could not dispute the position contained in the statement in the case. In the result, we hold that the Tribunal was not justified in taking the view as reflected by the aforesaid two questions. We, therefore, answer the questions in the negative, i.e., in favour of the applicant-Department and against the non-applicant assessee. The reference application is decided in terms indicated above but without any order as to costs. Counsel fee for each side shall, however, be Rs. 750, if certified. A copy of this order be transmitted to the Tribunal for further action as may be necessary in accordance with law.
-
1996 (2) TMI 58 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Quoted Equity Shares, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... oes not treat the break-up value as the market value. A deduction of 15 per cent. is made in the break-up value to arrive at the market value. It is equally relevant to notice that rule 1D uses the expression shall , which prima facie indicates its mandatory character. It is, thus, clear that the aforesaid provision is held to be mandatory in nature. That being so, it becomes clear that the Tribunal was not justified in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Wealth-tax and restoring that of the Wealth-tax Officer. Action under section 25(2) is tenable. Accordingly, we answer both the questions in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. The reference application is decided in terms indicated above, but without any orders as to costs. Counsel fee shall, however, be fixed at Rs. 750, for each side, if certified. Transmit a copy of this order to the Tribunal for information and further action as may be necessary in accordance with rules.
-
1996 (2) TMI 57 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Cost Of Acquisition, Diversion Of Income, Income By Overriding Title
-
1996 (2) TMI 56 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Carry Forward And Set Off, Unabsorbed Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... Weaving Factory 1991 189 ITR 512 (SC), it is held that From the above discussion, it will be seen that unabsorbed losses and unabsorbed depreciation are to be carried forward to future years to be set off against future income. There is, however, one important difference. Unabsorbed losses can be carried forward only for a period of eight years whereas unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward indefinitely. It is, thus, clear that unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward indefinitely. That being so, the Tribunal fell into error in not allowing the set off. The point, therefore, stands concluded by the aforesaid decisions. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department, but without any orders as to costs. Counsel fee, for each side, is however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. Transmit a copy of this order to the Tribunal immediately for further action as may be necessary in accordance with rules.
-
1996 (2) TMI 55 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Closing Stock, Dissolution Of Firm, Question Of Law, Sales Tax Liability ... ... ... ... ..... e questions of which we are directing reference, the questions framed herein and therefore do not require a separate reference in regard thereto. For the above reasons, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal is directed to refer the following two, questions to this court after drawing the required statement of case in the light of our above observations within a period of three months from the receipt of a copy of this judgment and the record, which should be transmitted forthwith 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in deleting the disallowance of the sales tax amount of Rs. 1,80,203 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in law and fact in deleting the addition to the closing stock ? A copy of this judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for passing consequential orders.
-
1996 (2) TMI 54 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
High Court, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... T v. Murti Devi Pradeep Kumar 1987 163 ITR 803 (All), that the factum of filing of special leave petition in the Supreme Court from the decision of this court is not a valid ground to state the cases and refer the question as the question stands decided. In view of the aforesaid position, we find that these applications are devoid of merit and deserve the fate of dismissal. In the result, we decline to call upon the Tribunal to state the cases and refer the common question as proposed. Accordingly, we dismiss all these applications leaving the applicant free to resort to appropriate remedy when occasion so arises and if permissible under the law. The applications are accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs. Counsel fee for each side in each case is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. Retain this order in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 242 of 1989, and place its copy each in the connected miscellaneous civil cases, as particularised above, for ready reference.
-
1996 (2) TMI 53 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... me ulterior motive. As held in the decision of the case of CIT v. Khanna Theatre 1990 184 ITR 156 (MP), the prior distribution of profits/losses among the partners is no longer necessary to obtain registration. On the other hand, a mere certificate to the effect that such profits will be divided or credited in future to the accounts of the partners will be considered as sufficient compliance with the Rules for grant of registration. The subsequent rectification of mistake is sufficient compliance in the instant case. Change of law shows legislative intent. In the result, we find that the Tribunal was not justified to label the partnership as ungenuine and pass the order on that basis. Our answer to the question referred to this court by the Tribunal is, therefore, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. We, however, make no order as to costs of this reference. Counsel fee for each side is fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. A copy of the order be sent to the Tribunal.
-
1996 (2) TMI 52 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Liquor Business ... ... ... ... ..... exclusively for the purpose of the business of the assessee. In a large number of decisions referred to above, a consistent view has been taken that though the illegal transaction might have resulted in profit and which may be taxable, but no deduction for such unlawful means employed for this purpose can be given. It is true that under the Income-tax Act, the income is, of course, taxed, but the illegal ways and means employed by the assessee for procuring such illegal profit cannot be countenanced and it is against the public policy. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Income-tax Officer is correct and the assessee is not entitled to deduction of Rs. 52,589 paid by the assessee for illegal purpose and the same has rightly been disallowed by the Income-tax Officer and affirmed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The view taken by the Tribunal is not correct. Hence, this reference is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
1996 (2) TMI 51 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Expenditure On Sales Promotion, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... city . In this sense the importance of the use of the conjunction and necessarily gets co-related to see the sales promotion activity flowing from advertisement and publicity in regard thereto. Even otherwise commission as it is understood is also payment as remuneration to the person earning and in that sense also could not be understood in its effect in the nature of sales promotion. Learned senior counsel has placed for our consideration a more or less similar view of this court in CIT v. Popular Automobiles Ltd. 1995 212 ITR 611. In addition we find that in regard to the same assessee in Original Petition No. 13828 of 1994 --- CIT v. Veneers and Laminations (India) Ltd. by the judgment dated November 3, 1994, although without reasons, depending on the order in Original Petition No. 2867 of 1993--CIT v. Popular Automobiles Ltd. 1995 212 ITR 611 (Ker), this court has already declined reference sought for by the Revenue. For the above reasons, the petition stands dismissed.
-
1996 (2) TMI 50 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Provision For Gratuity, Quoted Equity Shares ... ... ... ... ..... under rule 1D, of the Wealth-tax Rules read with Explanation II(ii)(f) to rule 1D, the provision of gratuity is deductible while ascertaining the value on the basis of the break-up method. So far as the second question is concerned, it relates to discount of 30 per cent. allowed by the Tribunal while valuing the unquoted equity shares under the break-up method, as per the provisions contained in rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules. A similar question came up for consideration before this court in Tax Cases Nos. 1150 and 1151 of 1982 (CGT v. Sundaram Industries Ltd. 1996 222 ITR 710), dated February 1, 1996, and this court held that the discount of 30 per cent. given is in order for the reasons stated therein. Accordingly, the issue arising under question No. 2 is covered by the above decision of this court in favour of the assessee. In that view of the matter, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (2) TMI 49 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Expenditure Tax, Profits And Gains Of Business Or Profession ... ... ... ... ..... ounsel for the assessee as well as learned standing counsel, for the Department. In view of the decisions in National Engineering (Industries) Ltd. v. CIT 1978 113 ITR 252 of the Calcutta High Court CIT v. Ghatkopar Estate and Finance Corporation (P.) Ltd. 1989 177 ITR 222 of the Bombay High Court Federal Bank Ltd. v. CIT 1989 180 ITR 37 of the Kerala High Court Bharat Commerce Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1985 153 ITR 275 of the Delhi High Court CIT v. International Instruments (P.) Ltd. 1983 144 ITR 936 of the Karnataka High Court Saurashtra Cement and Chemical Industries Ltd. v. CIT 1995 213 ITR 523 of the Gujarat High Court CIT v. Oriental Carpet Mfrs. (India) P. Ltd. 1973 90 ITR 373 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and Orissa Cement Ltd. v. CIT 1993 200 ITR 636 of the Delhi High Court we hold that the order passed by the Tribunal is in order. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (2) TMI 48 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Article 14 Of The Constitution, Assessment Year, Income Tax, Special Provision For Taxation, Total Income
-
1996 (2) TMI 47 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Computation Of Capital Reserves ... ... ... ... ..... ourt, that though the general body of the shareholders resolved and appropriated the sum of Rs. 76 lakhs towards the dividend from the reserve of Rs. 90 lakhs on May 31, 1963, the appropriation related back to the calender year 1962 to which it related and, as or January 1, 1963, the sum of Rs. 76 lakhs was a provision and only Rs. 14 lakhs could be treated as a reserve in the computation of capital for the purpose of surtax. The question that arose for consideration in the abovesaid decision was whether for the previous year 1963 relevant to the assessment year 1964-65, the entire amount of Rs. 90 lakhs could be included in the capital computation as a reserve for the purposes of surtax under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. While answering this question the Supreme Court held as stated above. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (2) TMI 46 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Acquisition Proceedings, Capital Gains, Question Of Fact ... ... ... ... ..... the facts of the present case. Though possession of the land was taken by the Government even before the initiation of the acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, yet for the purpose of vesting of the land in the Government, the relevant date would be the date when the award was passed, that is on March 25, 1981 the acquisition of the land and consequent accrual of capital gains would be in the assessment year 1980-81 (1981-82 ?). In this view of the matter, the Tribunal is right in holding that there could be no doubt that in the previous year, relevant to the assessment year 1978-79, no capital gain had arisen as there had been no transfer of land within the meaning of section 2(14) read with sections 45 and 47 of the Income-tax Act. Thus, the Tribunal is right in coming to the conclusion that no referable question of law arose. We find no illegality in the order of the Tribunal. The income-tax case is, therefore, dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
-
1996 (2) TMI 45 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Borrowed Capital, Business Income, HUF Business, Income Of HUF, Net Wealth ... ... ... ... ..... view was taken by the Supreme Court in N. T. Patel and Co. v. CIT 1961 42 ITR 224. The decision of the Supreme Court in Khanjan Lal Sewak Ram v. CIT 1972 83 ITR 175 lends support to the abovesaid conclusion. As already seen, according to the facts arising in this present case, one of the partners of the erstwhile firm, who is said to be absconding has not signed Form No. 12. Hence, Form No. 12 filed by the assessee in the present case is not in strict compliance with the provisions contained in rule 24 read with rule 22(5). Thus considering the facts arising in this case, in the light of the judicial pronouncements, cited supra, we would prefer to follow the judgment of the Supreme Court and that of the Mysore High Court cited supra instead of the decision of the Karnataka High Court reported in CIT (Addl.) v. S. V. Ratnaswamy and Sons 1977 106 ITR 154. For the foregoing reasons, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (2) TMI 44 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Borrowed Capital, Business Income, HUF Business, Income Of HUF, Net Wealth ... ... ... ... ..... ts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the amount allotted by the assessee-family to the six minor daughters of the karta who was the sole coparcener of the family together with accrued interest, totalling Rs. 4,02,288 had been validly transferred to the minors and not includible in the net wealth of the assessee ? The abovereferred to sums in all the abovesaid questions pertaining to different assessment years, are sums which are standing to the credit of all minor daughters, all put together, including any accretion thereto. Obviously, they cannot be treated as the net wealth of the assessee-family, those sums having already come to be owned by the said daughters pursuant to the above transfers with consideration made by the karta of the family in favour of the said daughters, as found by the Tribunal in the gift-tax case. Therefore, these questions are also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. No costs.
....
|
