|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 418 Records
-
1999 (4) TMI 38 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Investment Allowance, Manufacture Or Production ... ... ... ... ..... s produced in the hotel. The food that is prepared is meant for the immediate consumption and is not meant to be stored for a period of time and used, later by the customers who purchase the same. 17. The hotel industry is a service industry and use of the word industry in this context cannot result in the hotel being also regarded as manufacturing industry which it is not. The machinery installed in a hotel, therefore, is not a machinery installed in an industrial undertaking for the purpose of manufacture or production of any article of thing. The installation of an air-conditioning plant in a hotel is for the comfort of those who stay in or visit the hotel. Such airconditioning plant does not produce any article or thing. It is not a machinery used in association with or installed with other machinery used for the manufacture or production of article or thing. 18. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. No costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 37 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Appeal, Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... mental benefits and that the CIT(A) had correctly decided the matter. On the second issue, it found on the facts that deduction of Rs. 1,46,000 was also justified. 3. The Revenue is in appeal against this and its counsel Shri Pawnekar submitted that the forums below had not correctly applied the provisions of s. 10 of the Act. 4. Heard learned counsel and examined the orders passed by the forums below and in our view the issues raised are factual in nature and do not give rise to any substantial question of law warranting entertaining of an appeal under the newly added s. 260A of the IT Act which provides for an appeal only where the matter involves a substantial question of law. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
1999 (4) TMI 36 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Limitation, Failure To Disclose Material Facts ... ... ... ... ..... of funds from one fund to another was disclosed to the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment for the assessment year 1985-86. Exemption was claimed on that basis and exemption has been granted with reference to section 12 read with section 2(24)(iia). Thus, it was clearly a case where on the primary facts having been disclosed, the Assessing Officer has failed to draw legal inferences or to gather subsidiary material if at all required for the purpose of applying the law and was a case falling within the province of the proviso to section 147. That being so, the conclusion is inescapable that the notice issued on July 29, 1991, was beyond the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year 1985-86 which would end on March 31, 1986. The period for initiating proceedings under section 147 would expire on March 31, 1990. Accordingly, the impugned notice is quashed. The petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute. here shall be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Exemption, Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... in the business of manufacture, having regard to the facts of the case, are the weavers who worked on their looms and manufactured the cloth from out of the raw material provided by the assessee. The role of the assessee is limited to procuring the material and making it available to the weaver and thereafter effect sale of the finished product. The activity of the manufacture is not done by the assessee, but by others for which it no doubt makes payment. Such payment being made by the assessee is not sufficient to hold that the assessee himself is engaged in manufacture. 5. The relief under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act is required to be given in respect of industrial undertakings which includes manufacture or processing. Unless such manufacture or processing is done by the firm of which the assessee is a partner, the benefit under s. 5(1)(xxxii) of the Act cannot be claimed. 6. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
1999 (4) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Allowability ... ... ... ... ..... direct distribution of the profits of the year among the members. 3. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who reversed the order of the ITO Revenue then appealed to the Tribunal. The Tribunal has restored the order of the AO and inter alia pointed out that the distribution was not made on the basis of purchases made by the recipients of the articles, but on account of the fact that they were members or ex-members. No material has been placed at any point of the proceedings by the assessee to show the benefit derived from such presents and as to why it was limited to members and ex-members. 4. The Tribunal has on a question of fact held that the object of the distribution was only to enable the recipients to share the profits of the business of the assessee for that year and was not a genuine expenditure on giving sales incentives. 5. We do not see any error in the order of the Tribunal. The question referred to us is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
1999 (4) TMI 33 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... as it stood then was not that the certificate be of a surgeon working at a Government hospital but a certificate from any registered medical practitioner was needed to be produced and it enured for all subsequent years. If that be so, the certificate of Dr. Prabodh Desai for the assessment year 1991-92 fulfils that condition and it being otherwise a genuine certificate, the Assessing Officer could not have rejected it on the ground that it does not come from the prescribed source and the genuineness of the certificate not being in doubt, he could not have sat in judgment over its correctness. Thus, viewed from any point of view, the order of the Commissioner suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and cannot be sustained. This petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and the Commissioner is directed to decide the question on the grant of benefit under section 80U afresh in accordance with law, Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Computation ... ... ... ... ..... es in Anglo French at the rate of Rs. 601 per share has been arrived at on the basis of the audited accounts of Anglo French as at December 31, 1980, furnished by the vendors to the purchaser and copies whereof are annexed hereto. Whatever may be the market price, the price paid for the shares was the price which the vendee willingly was prepared to pay and had paid. The amount so paid had in fact been determined on the basis of the audited accounts of the company. The Tribunal is therefore right in upholding the orders of the Commissioner and the Income-tax Officer who had rightly assessed the sum mentioned in the assessment orders as long-term capital gains arising out of the sale of the shares held by the assessees in these two companies. Our answer to the question that has been referred to us is in the affirmative, against the assessees, and in favour of the Revenue. The Revenue shall be entitled to costs in the sum of Rs. 3,000 (rupees three thousand) payable in one set.
-
1999 (4) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Valuation Of Assets ... ... ... ... ..... isation of rent. The Tribunal was perfectly justified in arriving at the value of the Cash Bazar property on the basis of capitalisation of rent. In CIT v. Anup Kumar Kapoor 1980 125 ITR 684, it has been held by the Calcutta High Court that The value of the land cannot be taken twice, once in arriving at the figure by the yield or rental method and again in applying the value of an imaginary future reversionary value of the land. We concur with the view taken by the Calcutta High Court and we are of the view that the yield or rental method of valuation is proper and the value cannot be enhanced by adding the reversionary value of the land. The Wealth-tax Officer was not justified in adding the reversionary value of the land. Hence, we find no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. The value of the land cannot be enhanced by adding the reversionary value of the land. We answer the question referred to this court in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 30 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Reference, Appeal To Appellate Tribunal, Refund ... ... ... ... ..... 56 ITR 796, and a judgment of the Gujarat High Court. But it did not carry conviction with the Tribunal holding that assessment order dated March 24, 1986, had become final on the point and that denial of refund under section 141A could not be raised. The Tribunal accordingly affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Revenue (sic) felt aggrieved and filed an application under section 256(1) calling for a reference of four questions stated to be questions of law for the opinion of this court which was rejected on the ground that no referable question arose in the matter. Heard learned counsel and examined the record. Considering that the provisions of section 141A were attracted to the situation and that the assessee was also relying upon some judgments of the High Courts, we deem it appropriate to require the Tribunal to submit a statement of case on the questions stated above. The application is disposed of accordingly to the extent indicated above.
-
1999 (4) TMI 29 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Reference, Income, Capital Or Revenue Receipt, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... erred in treating the disputed amount as revenue receipt. The Revenue thereafter filed an application under section 256(1) asking the Tribunal to refer the above stated questions for the opinion of this court which was rejected. Hence, this application under section 256(2) for asking the Tribunal to make the requisite reference. Having regard to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Ltd. v. CIT 1997 228 ITR 253, laying down the test for determination whether a particular subsidy received was to be treated as a capital receipt or a revenue receipt and also the judgment of this court in CIT v. Dusad Industries 1986 162 ITR 784and also that the provisions of the scheme in question required appreciation, we deem it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to refer question No. (i) and to submit the statement of case for the opinion of this court. The other question which is by and large covered by the first one was not referable. Application is disposed of.
-
1999 (4) TMI 28 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Exemption, Condition Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... itself recognises that the voluntary retirement scheme must satisfy the conditions laid down under section 10(10C) of the Act, viz., the scheme being an approved one. We find from the record that the appellant s request for voluntary retirement had been accepted on July 23, 1992, and he was relieved with effect from July 25, 1992. It is also the admitted position that in the instant case the employers of the appellant sought approval of the voluntary retirement scheme only on November, 3, 1993. The said scheme was approved on November 18, 1993. A copy of the approval of the scheme has been produced before us. It is seen from the approval order that the scheme was approved operative from November 16, 1993, till March 31, 1994. Thus, it is clear that the appellant s retirement and payment received by him were not under an approved scheme, which is a sine qua non for availing of the exemption under section 10(10C) of the Income-tax Act. The appeal has no merit and is dismissed.
-
1999 (4) TMI 27 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Legal Representative, Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... erma before the Assessing Officer. We are in respectful agreement with the decision given by the Gujarat High Court in the case of the CIT v. Sumantbhai C. Munshaw 1981 128 ITR 142, and are of the view that all other heirs and legal representatives of the late Sri G. L. Verma wilfully abandoned the plea of abatement and chose to be governed by the assessment orders passed by the Income-tax Officer and the assessment proceedings were not a nullity. We, therefore, hold that the estate of the late Sri G. L. Verma was sufficiently represented by Sri Chandra Mohan Verma, the assessee before us, and the assessments for the aforementioned assessment years have rightly been made in the name of the assessee. The Tribunal had erred in quashing the said assessments. We, therefore, answer the question of law referred to us in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. Since nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee there shall be no orders as to costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Fines And Penalties ... ... ... ... ..... as made, a distinction for allowing losses incurred while indulging in infraction of law committed in carrying on lawful business and infraction of law committed in the business inherently unlawful. If lawful business is carried on by the assessee while carrying on the aforesaid business, the assessee commits infraction of law in smuggling gold resulting in confiscation of the said gold and loss occurs, in such an event no deduction can be allowed for carrying on a lawful business. The said deduction from an illegal business cannot be allowed as a loss in its lawful business. The present case falls under the category where a business is carried on by the assessee in a legal manner and he indulges in infraction of law and the losses suffered due to such infraction cannot be allowed while computing the income of the lawful business. In that view of the matter, we answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Reference is disposed of.
-
1999 (4) TMI 25 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment, Limitation, Draft Assessment Order, Words And Phrases ... ... ... ... ..... 3 of the Act which Parliament has not provided for, more so, for extending the period of limitation. We, therefore, do not agree with the contention raised by learned counsel for the Department. Our answer to the aforesaid question of law referred to us by the Tribunal is that the word forward is not to be interpreted in the same manner as the words issue or serve and the Tribunal was right in not interpreting the word forward in the same manner as issue or serve . Therefore, the interpretation given by the Tribunal to the word forward , i.e., the date on which the Assessing Officer signed the draft assessment order is not correct in law. It is the date on which the Income-tax Officer had given the said order to the postal authorities which in the present case is March 10, 1977, and, therefore, the assessment order dated August 24, 1977, was beyond limitation. The reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 24 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Weighted deduction under section 35B - expenditure incurred in India on insurance, shipment, freight, despatch and clearing and transportation of the goods to their destination - Since the items of expenditure in question have been incurred in India in connection with supply of goods, no weighted deduction under section 35B of the Act can be allowed on such expenditure
-
1999 (4) TMI 23 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... decided by the Tribunal. Therefore, the question whether the assessee is entitled to claim deduction in respect of additions made on account of excise duty amount received by him which formed part of a trade liability incurred by the assessee towards payment of the excise duty, though liability to tax disputed by him, has not arisen out of the Tribunal s order which can be made the subject-matter of scrutiny in this reference. The law has been declared by the Supreme Court in Chowringhee Sales Bureau P. Ltd. s case 1973 87 ITR 542, itself that the assessee is entitled to claim deduction when occasion for the same arises. It is for the assessee to raise the claim before the Tribunal and to be dealt with by the Tribunal in accordance with law if such claim is raised before it. As a result, we answer the above question in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There shall be no order as to costs. Reference answered in the affirmative.
-
1999 (4) TMI 22 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessment, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... of section 139(1) of the Act, more particularly in the light of the proviso to section 139(1) of the Act and the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes referred to hereinabove, the revised return can be validly treated as a return filed under the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act and, therefore, it cannot be said that the assessment was not made within the time limit prescribed under the provisions of section 153 of the Act and, therefore, we are of the view that the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer was not barred by limitation. In view of the facts stated hereinabove, the assessment made by the Income-tax Officer was not barred by limitation and the Assessing Officer, was justified in framing the assessment on the basis of the revised return. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Order accordingly.
-
1999 (4) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... the products are properly accounted for and deducted from the sales realisation. The object of the Act is to tax profits and gains from the business. The profit has to be determined on the basis of the commercial practices which are normally adopted for the purpose of ascertaining the profit from the business. The liabilities incurred are required to be deducted before the profit is determined. The Tribunal, therefore, in our view, has rightly held that the quantification of the liability after the end of the year does not disentitle the assessee from claiming the deduction in this year. The assessee having accepted the liability being part of the price payable for the cane received in the preceding year and having paid the tax thereon the liability is deemed to have arisen for the year of account and it is required to be taken note of for computation of income for that year. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1999 (4) TMI 20 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Writ, Notice ... ... ... ... ..... he Act, the petitioner shall be free to challenge the same in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioner while concluding his submissions prayed that in case the petitioner approaches the concerned authority by filing a reply/explanation to the impugned notice, he should be allowed to raise all objections as have been raised in the present writ petition. There cannot be any objection in this regard. This court, vide order dated January 27, 1983, restrained the respondents from passing any final order of reassessment. In the interest of justice, I deem it proper to direct the petitioner to file his reply and objections before the assessing authority within 30 days from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. Since the matter relates to the year 1982-83 for the assessment year 1978-79, the assessing authority is also directed to pass necessary orders within 30 days thereafter. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1999 (4) TMI 19 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Recovery Of Tax, Firm, Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... 1)(c) of the Act has been imposed upon the petitioner. Thus, reliance placed by the respondents on section 271(1)(c) of the Act is, ill-founded. No other point has been pressed before us. We, therefore, hold that the respondents cannot realise the outstanding amount of penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) against the firm, Guru Nanak Metal Stores, Kanpur, from the petitioner. We, accordingly, quash the order dated April 29, 1987, passed by the Income-tax Officer, Circle-I(6) Kanpur (filed as annexure H to the writ petition), as also the notice dated July 27, 1987, issued by the Tax Recovery Officer (A), Kanpur, respondent No. 2 (filed as annexure I to the writ petition). We further direct respondent No. 3 to release the title deed of the property No. 18/183A, Kurswan, Kanpur, to the petitioner, which the petitioner has deposited by way of equitable mortgage while executing the surety bond on May 7, 1974. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed with costs.
....
|
