|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 465 Records
-
1997 (2) TMI 85 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Law Applicable, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... 984, the limitation for passing an order under section 263 will, in view of the general principles of interpretation of statutes, stand extended in cases where the period of limitation originally laid down in that section had not expired before October 1, 1984. However, with a view to avoiding controversy and litigation in the matter, it is desirable that orders under section 263 of the Income-tax Act are passed, as far as possible, within two years of the date of the order sought to be revised in cases where the order sought to be revised was passed before October 1, 1984. The clarification relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent does not and cannot come to the rescue of the assessee as the same is neither clear nor in consonance with the law settled on the point. For the reasons recorded above, these petitions are allowed and we direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer to this court the question of law mentioned by us in the earlier part of this judgment.
-
1997 (2) TMI 84 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Original Assessment, Rectification Proceedings, Tribunal's Order ... ... ... ... ..... unal allowing the rectification application is contrary to the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in Volkart Brothers case 1971 82 ITR 50. The fact that the question was highly debatable stands further reaffirmed in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Smith Kline and French (India) Ltd. v. CIT 1996 219 ITR 581 holding that surtax levied under the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964, clearly falls within the mischief of sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of section 40 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and cannot be allowed as a deduction while computing the business income of the assessee under the provisions of the Income-tax Act. A similar view had earlier been taken by this court in Orissa Cement Ltd. v. CIT 1993 200 ITR 636. In view of these decisions the deductions claimed by the assessee could not be allowed even at the first instance. For the reasons aforesaid, the question is answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 83 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Transfer Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... e property even did not belong to him. In the instant case, admittedly, the assessee was in occupation of the property in question up to July 15, 1973, on leave and licence basis. He purchased the property from its owner only on July 16, 1973. The user of the same by the assessee on and from that date only is relevant for the purposes of section 54. That being so, it is obvious that the property in question had not been used by the assessee or his parents for own residence in the two years immediately preceding the date of the transfer. In view of the above, in our opinion, in the instant case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to claim exemption under section 54 of the Act in respect of the capital gains arising from the transfer of the residential flat in question. Accordingly, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 82 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Criminal Proceedings, Offences And Prosecution, Power To Admit Additional Evidence, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax
-
1997 (2) TMI 81 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Assessing Officer, Assessment Order, Assessment Year, Business Expenditure, Company Surtax, Development Allowance, Insurance Business, Law Applicable, Weighted Deduction
-
1997 (2) TMI 80 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interest On Deposit ... ... ... ... ..... arned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that a substantial portion of the interest amounts were only interest on interest, and, therefore, the provisions of section 40A(8) of the Act would not apply to the facts of this case. It remains to be seen that the deposits were made as cumulative deposits with compound interest. In such a case, it is not possible to say that the major portion of the deposit amount was interest on interest. In view of the majority of judgments of the various High Courts cited supra, we hold that the Tribunal was not correct in coming to the conclusion that section 40A(8) of the Act is not applicable to the facts of this case. On the other hand, the deposits made by the directors with the company are deposits under section 40A(8) of the Act and the interest received thereon is liable to be disallowed under the abovesaid provision. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. No costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 79 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Business Expenditure, Expenditure Incurred, Finding Of Fact, Hybrid System, Question Of Law
-
1997 (2) TMI 78 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Doctrine Of Merger, Subject Matter ... ... ... ... ..... the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). In CIT v. Nanikram Sobhraj Mills Pvt. Ltd. 1994 209 ITR 283 (Guj), while considering the doctrine of merger in the context of the revisional power of the Commissioner of Income-tax, this court held that against the order which was made by the Income-tax Officer allowing the deduction claimed by the assessee, there was no appeal filed and, therefore, it could not be said that the said order had merged into the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. It was, therefore, held that the Commissioner of Income-tax could exercise his powers of revision under section 263 of the Act against the order of the Income-tax Officer allowing deduction to the assessee. We are in respectful agreement with the ratio of this decision. Under the above circumstances, both the questions referred to us are answered in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 77 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Income Tax Act, Provisions Of I.T.Act, Retrospective Effect, Supreme Court
-
1997 (2) TMI 76 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Assessment Notice, Assessment Order, Assessment Proceedings, Reassessment Notice, Reassessment Proceedings
-
1997 (2) TMI 75 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Reason To Believe, Reassessment Proceedings, Valuer's Report ... ... ... ... ..... ot give opportunity of being heard before making the report. The valuer s report is with respect to the investment in the house constructed by the petitioner. In our view, no notice was required to be given before the issuance of notice under section 148. We are not impressed with the contention that the impugned notices have been issued by the Assessing Officer without there being any reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax had escaped the assessment. However, the petitioner will have opportunity to contest the correctness of the valuer s report during the course of assessment proceedings in pursuance of the notices under section 148. The petition is dismissed in limine.
-
1997 (2) TMI 74 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Transfer Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... transfer. This court did not agree with the contrary decision of the Delhi High Court in S. Harnam Singh Suri v. CBDT 1984 145 ITR 159 and the decision of the Karnataka High Court in M. Abdul Sattar v. CIT 1987 163 ITR 642, where it was held that the expression in the two years immediately preceding the date of the transfer would mean at any time within two years . The controversy in this case thus stands concluded by the decision of this court in CIT v. Sudhir Jayantilal Mulji 1995 214 ITR 154 and following the same, we are of the clear opinion that the Tribunal was right in this case in holding that the assessee was not entitled to relief under section 54 of the Act as the house property in question was not used by her for her own residence for a continuous period of two years preceding the date of the transfer. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. This reference is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 73 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Depreciation And Development Rebate, Ownership Of Asset, Scientific Research Expenditure
-
1997 (2) TMI 72 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Criminal Proceedings, Penalty Proceedings, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ng false verification in the return of income. Thus, the petitioner made himself liable to be prosecuted under sections 276C and 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The complaint was filed on March 13, 1992. During the pendency of the criminal proceeding the Income-tax Tribunal, Patna, vide order dated February 11, 1994, held that the penalty was bad ab initio in law and, accordingly, the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax confirming the penalty was set aside. In this view of the matter, it has been contended that the criminal proceeding pending against the petitioner is liable to be quashed. In a similar situation, in the case of Mahadeo Lal Agarwala v. State of Bihar 1997 224 ITR 119 1996 1 PLJR 533 this court had quashed the proceeding. In that case, the penalty proceeding under section 276C was dropped by the assessing authority. In the facts and circumstances of the case, this application is allowed and the criminal proceeding against the petitioner is hereby quashed.
-
1997 (2) TMI 71 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Law Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... made on the date inaccurate particulars were furnished in the return of income. In the case of M. N. Chatterjee 1988 170 ITR 87 (Patna), the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan 1979 120 ITR 1, has not at all been referred to. Therefore, the ratio of the decision in the case of M. N. Chatterjee 1988 170 ITR 87 (Patna), laying down contrary law is per incuriam and consequently the same is not binding upon this Bench. In the present case, the return was undisputedly filed on September 13, 1974, and the amended law came into force with effect from April 1, 1976. Therefore, we have no difficulty in holding that for calculating penalty, the law which was in force prior to April 1, 1976, shall govern the present one and the Tribunal was not justified in taking the contrary view. Accordingly, the reference is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna.
-
1997 (2) TMI 70 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Exemption From Gift Tax, High Court, Question Of Law, Rectification Of Mistakes, Rectification Proceedings, Tax Authorities
-
1997 (2) TMI 69 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Fixed Deposit, Gift Tax, Minor Child, Not Ordinarily Resident ... ... ... ... ..... he proceeds of the fixed deposits on maturity to his daughters in India, and it is found as a fact by the Appellate Tribunal that the property in the fixed deposits should be considered to have passed from the assessee-donor to the various donees as soon as these instructions are given in England by the assessee to his banker. In the light of the abovesaid finding of the Tribunal, learned counsel for the Revenue could not advance any serious argument contra before us. Further it also appears that most of the gifts in question, if not all, are in favour of the minors. So also it can be concluded that even while the donor gave the abovesaid instructions to his bank, he also accepted the said gift on behalf of his minor daughter-donees. Therefore, in these cases, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Tribunal granting exemption under section 5(1)(ii)(a) of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 68 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment Order, Original Assessment, Original Order ... ... ... ... ..... order in the expression from the date of the order sought to be amended in section 154(7) was not qualified in any way, it did not necessarily mean the original order it could be any order including the amended or rectified order. The view taken by the Tribunal was the correct one and the High Court was wrong in setting aside the decision of the Tribunal. The order of the Appellate Tribunal holding that for the purpose of computing the limitation period under section 154 of the Act to rectify the mistake, the order dated August 14, 1978, should be taken into account is in conformity with the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case cited supra. Therefore, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in the view it has taken that the order of rectification under section 154 of the Act was passed within the period of limitation provided under section 154 of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the common question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 67 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Attributable To, Discretionary Trust, New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... dend income would, therefore, be eligible for deduction under section 80K in the hands of the assessees. Therefore, while directly assessing the beneficiaries in respect of the dividend income received by them, the amounts of dividends eligible for deduction under section 80K are required to be deducted in the same manner as would have been done had the trustees been assessed in respect of such amounts. Thus, when admittedly the amounts were paid by the trusts out of the dividend income which was in the hands of the trusts eligible to deduction under section 80K as has been found on facts, the Tribunal was right in holding that such deductible amount received by the assessees from these discretionary trusts were eligible for deduction under section 80K. Question No. 2 referred to us is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee in both these references. Both the references stand disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1997 (2) TMI 66 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Change Of Law, Loans Or Deposits, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... tment in this case filed the present complaint for the deposits accepted by the accused after omission of section 276DD. They not only filed the complaint and failed in their attempt to get the accused convicted but also preferred several appeals on the file of this court. My learned brother Justice Bapat passed a detailed order in Crl. Appeal No. 257 of 1994 dated September 3, 1996. It is not known how many hundreds or thousands of cases of such frivolous nature were filed all over the country. This court notes with concern the apathy on the part of the officials and the way they are squandering away public money without any justification. Unless the aspect of accountability is introduced for the commissions and omissions on the part of the officials concerned, there is no safety for the public monies in the hands of these officers. The complaint as well as the appeal are frivolous and the Magistrate rightly has thrown out the complaint. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
....
|
