|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 459 Records
-
2000 (2) TMI 79 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Long-term Capital Gains, Cost Of Acquisition ... ... ... ... ..... ansferred, it is not necessary to ascertain the value of bonus shares separately and the cost of all shares being a known figure, it would be deducted to compute the capital gains. The view arrived at by the Tribunal is in consonance with various decisions, cited supra. Accordingly, we find no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal in holding that the assessee is not entitled to deduct the sum of Rs. 1,53,128 as cost of bonus shares in addition to the cost of acquisition of original shares in the two amalgamated companies. Accordingly, we answer the questions of law referred to us as under Question at the instance of the It is answered in the affirmative and Revenue against the Revenue. Question at the instance of the It is answered in the affirmative and assessee against the assessee. The Revenue would be entitled to costs of a sum of Rs. 2,000 in the assessee s reference, and the assessee would be entitled to costs of a sum of Rs. 2,000 in the Revenue s reference.
-
2000 (2) TMI 78 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Precedent, Supreme Court, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ). Now, the net result is that even though a consideration could have been made in the light of the decision of the apex court, because of non-challenge to the order passed by this court, a different conclusion has been arrived at which is at variance with the view expressed by the apex court. What is binding under article 141 is the ratio of the decision and not any finding on facts. It is the principle underlying a decision which is binding. It is to be read in the context of the questions which arose for consideration. Judged in that background, the Tribunal s conclusions cannot be maintained. In the circumstances, we think it proper to direct the Tribunal to rehear the matter and examine the acceptability of the assessee s case in the light of the decision rendered by the apex court in Shahzada Nand and Sons case 1977 108 ITR 358. As indicated above, the fact situation is somewhat peculiar and, therefore, we have adopted this course. Reference is disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (2) TMI 77 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Educational Institution, Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... s shall be spent only for attainment of the objects of the society and no portion thereof shall be paid or transferred directly or indirectly to any of its members through any means. It is the admitted case that the payments were made to concerns, where members/partners were partners. The Tribunal seems not to have considered the effect of the restrictions to. find out whether they apply to the facts of the case. Further, the applicability of the ratio of the decision, Sole Trustee s case 1975 101 ITR 234 (SC), as highlighted by the Revenue has not been examined. As factual aspects have not been considered, we think it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to re-examine the matter after taking into account the materials already on record and to be produced by the parties, if any. Since the matter is being remanded for fresh hearing any observations made by the Tribunal earlier should not be held to be conclusive and are to be re-examined. The references are answered accordingly.
-
2000 (2) TMI 76 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Purchase Of Immovable Property By Central Government ... ... ... ... ..... he agreement to sale. In our view, this cannot be an obstruction in purchase by the appropriate authority Considering these facts and circumstances, as referred to above we are of the view that equity requires that respondent No. 7, vendor, is entitled for the interest at the rate of 12 per cent. from the Government, for the period from October 1, 1994 to July 22, 1998, on the amount Rs. 29,32,597 which could not be paid to the vendor, respondent No. 7, on account of acquisition proceedings under section 269UD of the Act. So far the 5 per cent. balance consideration is concerned, which has not been paid and payable only on completion of the conveyance, for that there is already a provision in the agreement and the purchaser-bank will pay the interest on that balance amount while the conveyance deed will be executed. Considering the above discussion the appeal is dismissed and the cross-appeal of respondent No. 7 is allowed in part as referred to above. G. C. DE J.---I agree.
-
2000 (2) TMI 75 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Revision, Powers Of CIT ... ... ... ... ..... fferent even after considering the particular fact which the Commissioner has directed the Income-tax Officer to consider. Further, the power of revision is not meant to be exercised for the purpose of directing the Income-tax Officer to hold another investigation when the order of the Assessing Officer was not found to be erroneous. The Commissioner of Income-tax in the instant case, in our opinion, has merely set aside the order of the Income-tax Officer directing the officer to hold further investigation without recording any finding that the order passed by the Income-tax Officer was in any way erroneous or prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, We hold that the Tribunal was quite justified in holding that the order did not call for any interference in the, revision done by the Commissioner of Income-tax. Accordingly, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the, Revenue. The assessee will be entitled to costs of a sum of Rs. 750.
-
2000 (2) TMI 74 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Surtax, Non-resident ... ... ... ... ..... assengers, livestock, mail or goods shipped at any port in India and the amount received or deemed to be received in India on account of carriage of such items shipped at any port outside India. Unless assessment was made in terms of section 44B, it cannot be said that the owner of the ship or charterer had been assessed on the total income under the Income-tax Act. The stand of the Revenue that the assessment under sub-section (2) of section 172 was itself an assessment of total income cannot be accepted, as before the Assessing Officer could proceed on that basis, either the assessee should have exercised option under section 172(7) or the Assessing Officer should have made an assessment in terms of section 44B of the Act. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal were, therefore, justified in their conclusion that tax under the Act is not leviable. Our answer to the questions referred is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2000 (2) TMI 73 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interest And Penalty, Waiver of ... ... ... ... ..... rds, the petitioner has satisfied the conditions in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 273A. The courts have taken a view that the provisions of section 273A have to be liberally construed. Further, when the conditions laid down under section 273A of the Act have been satisfied, the first respondent is statutorily bound to exercise all the powers vested in him/her and hence the order of the first respondent wherein he/she refused to exercise power of discretion is not valid in law. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the first respondent is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner for the assessment year 1988-89. The order impugned with reference to the waiver of interest and penalty for the assessment year 1988-89 only shall stand quashed, and the matter is remitted to the Commissioner of Income-tax---first respondent herein for fresh consideration in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected W. M. P. is closed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 72 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Transfer Of Case ... ... ... ... ..... do not in any way curtail the statutory powers vested in the income-tax authorities by law, and, while no case would be transferred in a routine manner, in exceptional cases of sensitive nature or those requiring centralisation and decentralisation on priority basis or where court s directions are to be complied with, orders for change of jurisdiction may be passed only after obtaining the prior approval of the Board. From the above, the submission of learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners basing on the said circular dated June 9, 1999, cannot be countenanced. For the reasons stated above, the impugned proceedings of the first respondent are set aside, and these writ petitions are allowed accordingly. But, this will not preclude the first respondent to pass an order in the later stage, if it is necessary, and the said order should be passed, in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, W. M. P. Nos. 24965, 24966, 26075 and 26076 and 26077 of 1999 are closed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 71 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Claim for relief under section 80J - no claim was made before the Income-tax Officer in earlier years - carry forward - Tribunal took the view that when some relief is permissible under the law and if no specific claim is made even then that should be allowed by the authorities concerned – Tribunal is justified in holding that the assessee is entitled to carry forward the claim of relief under section 80J of the Income-tax Act, relevant to the years when the assessee suffered loss and is entitled to get the said relief in the year in which the assessee had profits
-
2000 (2) TMI 70 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Tax Clearence Certificate ... ... ... ... ..... When a mortgage/charge is extinguished, it is due to the consideration for securing which the documents had been created having been repaid. Whether the receipt of such amount would result in liability to tax under the enactments mentioned in section 230A(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act is a matter which would require the consideration of the officer exercising powers under section 230A of the Income-tax Act. It cannot, therefore, be said that such documents are not meant to be covered by section 230A of the Act. The express language used in the section is clear. It gives overriding effect to that provision and specifically mandates that the certificate provided for therein, is an essential pre-requisite for the registration of documents which fall within the scope of section 17(1)(a) to (e) of the Registration Act. The petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the declaration sought. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M. P. No. 19869 of 1994 is dismissed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 69 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Appeal To Appellate Tribunal, Procedure ... ... ... ... ..... Therefore, if there was no power of attorney in favour of Sri H. G. Agarwal filed along with the memorandum of appeals or before the hearing, the Tribunal should have brought this fact to the notice of the appellant by issuing a defect memo. Similarly, the supposed defect in the memorandum of appeals should also have been brought to the notice of the appellant requiring if to make the necessary amendments. This has not been done and we find that the petitioner has been deprived of his right of appeal because of some deficiencies on the part of its representative who was a chartered accountant of substantial standing. The assessee was in law entitled to a notice for removal of the defects and this having not been done, the Tribunal s order suffers from illegality and deserves to be quashed. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated July 29, 1999, is quashed and the Appellate Tribunal is directed to proceed afresh in the matter, in accordance with law.
-
2000 (2) TMI 68 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Reference, Business, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... also acting as a financier/banker/agent for the purchases made by the assessee from the third parties which were routed through the Deutsche Bank. At this stage, it is not necessary to go into more details in the matter since the limited question to be considered is as to whether a question of law arises or not. As we are of the view that the applicability of the provisions of a statute is a question of law and it has to be examined in the present case as to whether the remission was on the capital account or chargeable to tax under section 41(1) or section 28(iv) which involves a question of law. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the controversy involved, we are of the opinion that the above question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal is, therefore, directed to draw up the statement of case and refer the above question along with the statement of case within three months from the date of receipt of this order. C. P. is allowed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 67 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Individual Income ... ... ... ... ..... uthority and merely claiming it to be non-taxable while filing the income-tax returns for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75 on the basis of the alleged declaration made in the return for the assessment year 1968-69, which had not been accepted by the Income-tax Officer and which decision the assessee had allowed to become final, does not establish his intention to throw the aforesaid house property in the common hotchpot of the Hindu undivided family. Having found that there was no intention from the act and conduct of the assessee to throw the house property in question into the common hotchpot of the Hindu undivided family, we are of the view that by merely declaring the same in the return of income will not blend the said property with the Hindu undivided family property. We, therefore, answer the aforementioned question of law referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (2) TMI 66 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance, Interpretation Of Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... N. C. Budharaja s case 1993 204 ITR 412 on which heavy reliance was placed by learned senior counsel for the Revenue does not help the Department in any way. We hold that all the requirements of section 32A of the Act are wholly satisfied. The assessee is the owner of the machinery it used it for the purpose of the business carried on by the assessee, The air compressor does not come in the negative list enumerated in section 32A of the Act and it is employed in the intermediate stage of manufacture or production of articles or things. Since all the pre-conditions for the grant of investment allowance are satisfied, we find no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Tribunal in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim investment allowance in respect of the air compressor used by it for sand blasting. Accordingly, we answer the question of law in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to costs of a sum of Rs. 1,000.
-
2000 (2) TMI 65 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Executor, Interpretation Of Taxing Statutes, Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... h net wealth as on the valuation date. That, however, does not make any significant difference to the interpretation of section 19A of the Wealth-tax Act and section 168 of the Income-tax Act in so far as the Explanations attached to those provisions which are couched in identical language are concerned. We hold that the extended definition of executor given in the Explanation to section 168 of the Income-tax Act is only intended to apply to the de facto administrator of the estate of a deceased person, who has died testate, besides the person to whom letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed is granted by the court. Section 168 of the Income-tax Act is inapplicable to income from the estates of persons who have died intestate. The question referred to us in all these tax references on, this aspect is answered accordingly. The other questions referred on the assumption that section 168 of the Act applies even in cases of intestacy is answered in the negative.
-
2000 (2) TMI 64 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... eived by the assessee as subsidy and is liable to be taxed as income under the provisions of the Act. Further, the amount received was not given as deduction in the computation of income of the assessee and the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act are not applicable and the sum of Rs. 67,379 is not liable to be treated as income of the assessee. We, therefore, hold that in so far as the sum of Rs. 67,379 is concerned, it cannot be treated as the income of the assessee for the purpose of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, we hold that in so far as the assessment of the refund of the sum of Rs. 2,32,794 received by the assessee from the Electricity Board is concerned, it was rightly treated as income under section 41(1) of the Act but the sum of Rs. 67,379 is not its income for the purpose of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, we answer the questions of law referred to us in the manner indicated above, However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (2) TMI 63 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration, Assessment, Unregistered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... Laxmichand Hirjibhai v. CIT 1981 128 ITR 747 was not applicable to the assessee s case though the assessment of the partners were completed when the Commissioner of Income-tax passed the order. Therefore, question No. 1 is decided in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Since question No. 2 is corollary and ancillary to question No. 1 in our opinion, it is also required to be decided in consonance with our opinion in respect of question No. 1. Thus, question No. 2 at the instance of the Revenue is decided in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Obviously, that would take us to question No. 3. In our opinion, this question is required to be decided in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly, question No. 3 is decided in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the result, the reference shall stand disposed. of accordingly, without any order as to costs.
-
2000 (2) TMI 62 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To High Court, Penalty, Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... the assessee was guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars and that the assessee was guilty of concealment of income. The Tribunal has found, on the facts, that under the above circumstances, it cannot be stated that the assessee was guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars. As stated hereinabove, in the original returns filed on July 27, 1977, the assessee did not claim any depreciation which was subsequently claimed on the basis of the revised returns filed on August 30, 1978. The settlement was arrived at on the basis of the ad hoc arrangement. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that there was no concealment of income and merely because the assessee debated the issue for a long time, it cannot be stated that the assessee was guilty of concealment of income or of furnishing inaccurate particulars. This is a pure finding of fact. No substantial question of law arises on the facts of the present case. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 61 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To High Court, Search And Seizure, Block Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... of estimation some amount of latitude is required to be shown to the Assessing Officer particularly when relevant documents are not forthcoming. However, it does not mean that the Assessing Officer can arrive at any figure without any basis by adopting an arbitrary method of calculation. In the present matter, A3, A4 and A6 nowhere records the turnover of the assessee as found by the Tribunal and yet on the wrong basis of the incoming and outgoing cash transactions, the Assessing Officer has arrived at the turnover. Moreover, the peak investment was Rs. 40,14,806 for three months. However, there is no material seized to justify any figure to be included for a period earlier to the said period of three months. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact and has held that the addition of Rs. 3.40 crores was totally unjustified. The entire finding of the Tribunal is based on the facts. No substantial question of law arises. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 60 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To High Court, Export ... ... ... ... ..... hubhlaxmi Mills Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 1989 177 ITR 193, it was not permissible to create extra reserve after the profit and loss account is finally drawn up. We do not find any merit in the said contention. All throughout it has been contended by the assessee in the present matter that section 80HHC does not prevent the assessee from creating extra reserve in the above circumstances and that natural justice warranted that an opportunity be given to create extra reserve. The Tribunal found, on the facts, that this opportunity was available to the assessee but it did not avail of the said opportunity which is a pure finding of fact, as stated above. Secondly, the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Shubhlaxmi Mills Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 1989 177 ITR 193 was in the context of development rebate and not under section 80HHC and, therefore, it has no application to the facts of the present case. Under the above circumstances, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
....
|
