|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 408 Records
-
1996 (8) TMI 28 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Chargeable Profits, Law Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... nal that the above said questions of law are said to arise. In CIT v. Andhra Bank Ltd. 1990 186 ITR 192, the Division Bench of this court took the view that on the face of it the Explanation added in the Surtax Act with effect from April 1, 1981, was declaratory of the law already existing and consequently it would be effective for the assessment year 1975-76 as well and held that only the net dividend should be excluded and not the gross dividend. The same view is taken by another Division Bench of this court of which one of us (Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri) was a member in CIT v. Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. 1995 212 ITR 624. Following those judgments, the third question is answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. So far as questions Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, in our view, those questions do not really arise from the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, we decline to answer the same. The reference is accordingly answered.
-
1996 (8) TMI 27 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seized Assets, Tax Liability ... ... ... ... ..... ank, respondent No. 3, receives such communication from respondent No. 1, it shall revive the concerned fixed deposit receipts. In case any of them has since matured, it will be open to the petitioners and the respondents to get them renewed for a further term as they may consider necessary (iii) that in respect of the other fixed deposit receipts, if any, seized by the respondents from the petitioners, the respondents are restrained from encashing them except for the purpose of discharge of the liability arising from assessments of the petitioners and are directed to get them renewed on the request made by the petitioners to that effect for such period as may be considered necessary. It is made clear that the seizure made under section 132 of the Act will continue in accordance with law in respect of the original deposits as well as the renewed deposits, if any. A certified copy of this order may be furnished to learned counsel on payment of usual charges within three days.
-
1996 (8) TMI 26 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the provisions of the IT Act excepting Chapter VI-A, has to be included and from the net dividend included in the gross total income, deduction under Chapter VI-A would have to be allowed for the purpose of arriving at the total income. The Surtax Officer would have to take into account the total income as computed under the provisions of the IT Act for the purpose of adjustment under the Surtax Act and, therefore, whatever has not been included in the assessment cannot be excluded. Only the amount which has been included can be excluded. This Court has considered the position and found it as an error to hold that the entire dividend income was to be excluded from the income assessed under r. 1(viii) of the First Schedule. We respectfully follow the same line of reasoning and consequently answer the question in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, with a further observation that the Tribunal would have to work out the necessary details accordingly.
-
1996 (8) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... n of the assessee gets justified when the tax finally determined was at Rs. 24,70,114. Further, Rs. 12 lakhs paid by the assessee by way of third instalment under s. 212(3A) was accepted by the Department as advance tax. If once the payment was accepted as advance tax and the difference would be the tax demanded and the total tax paid was very negligible, it cannot be said that the assessee is not entitled to interest under s. 214 of the Act on the excess payment of tax. This conclusion we have arrived at on the basis of various decisions cited supra. Thus considering the facts arising in this case, we are of the opinion that there is no ground for the CIT to interfere with the order passed by the ITO under s. 263 of the Act. 11. In that view of the matter, we hold that the order passed by the Tribunal in cancelling the order passed under s. 263 of the Act is in order. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (8) TMI 24 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Closing Stock, Net Principal Value, Principal Value Of Estate ... ... ... ... ..... s have placed decisions before the authorities at its own concurrent levels. When this undisputed and uncontroverted factual position was put to learned counsel for the assessee it is natural that she was in difficulties in view of the fact that this undisputed limited approach, could not be controverted much less in the present proceedings for answer to the question. In our judgment fixation and valuation in the matter of closing stock is approached from the point of view of uncontroverted and undisputed position of the special discount which is 12 1/2 per cent. in any situation. It is a situation dealing with the undisputed factual conclusion. For the above reasons, we find that the question has to be answered in the affirmative---against the accountable person and in favour of the Revenue. A copy of the 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 (8) TMI 23 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Gratuity Liability, Quoted Equity Shares ... ... ... ... ..... t of the contention, particularly the observations at page 476 in regard thereto. This court has already considered the said decision and pointedly observed that the real question for determination is the character of the liability as to whether the liability is contingent or existing. We have held that this determination would reflect its application to various taxation statutes. It is not possible to consider the submission in view of the judgment in I. T. R. No. 166 of 1991, John J. Chackola v. CED 1997 224 ITR 34 (Ker). For all the above reasons we answer question No. 1 in the negative---in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and question No. 2 need not be answered in view of the judgment of this court in I. T. R. No. 166 of 1991, John J. Chackola v. CED 1997 224 ITR 34 (Ker). A copy of the 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 (8) TMI 22 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Development Allowance, Finality Of Findings Of Fact, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... s outside India for such goods, services or facilities furnishing to a person outside India samples or technical information for the promotion of the sale of such goods, services or facilities. Therefore, on facts, we come to the conclusion that the commission paid to the local agents of foreign buyers in the present case is eligible for weighted deduction under sub-clauses (i) and (vi) of section 35B of the Act. In Rajan Trading Company v. CIT 1995 214 ITR 335, this court held that since the commission on export of Rs. 38,459 paid in India is not relatable to export trade, relief under section 35B of the Act was not granted. Therefore, on facts this court came to the conclusion in the abovesaid decision that the commission payment does not relate to export trading. Therefore, this decision would render no assistance to decide the issue arising in the present case. Accordingly, we answer the second part of the question in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (8) TMI 21 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Higher Rate, Hotel Building, Rate Of Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... 1997 225 ITR 699 (Ker), decided by us yesterday. We adopt the same reasoning. In this situation, it would be really unnecessary to consider question No. 2 which relates to the provisions of the Income-tax Rules for higher depreciation on the hotel buildings on the footing that the hotel building constituted a plant in the earlier year. This is also in view of the fact that every assessment year is independent of the other and remains intact with regard to the positions which are required to be governed by section 32 of the Income-tax Act. For the above reasons, we answer question No. 1 in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, for the reasons in ITR No. 155 of 1991 in CIT v. Damodar Corporation 1997 225 ITR 699 (Ker). We think it unnecessary to answer question No. 2. A copy of the 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 (8) TMI 20 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appellate Assistant Commissioner, High Court, Income Tax, Registered Firm, Unregistered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... he direction issued by the Commissioner cannot be said to be correct. We, therefore, hold that an appeal in the present set of facts is maintainable under section 31 of the Act as against the order passed by the assessing authority assigning the status prescribed by the Commissioner in exercise of the power under section 34 of the Act. The Tribunal has cancelled the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the order of the assessing authority has been restored to operation. In the view we have taken, we direct the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to dispose of the appeal on the merits treating the assessee as unregistered firm . Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner may be allowed to agitate the contention with regard to quantum and other points on merits. We make it clear that no contention can be advanced on the question of status which has already been concluded. Subject to the above observation, the tax revision cases are disposed of.
-
1996 (8) TMI 19 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Assessment Year, Quoted Equity Shares, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ur attention the decision of the apex court and also a passage relating to Explanation II to section 147 in the standard treatise The Law and Practice of Income-tax, Kanga and Palkhivala, 8th Edition, Vol. I at page 1198, summarised hereinbefore. In our judgment, the detailed consideration and consequent declaration of the apex court in Bharat Hari Singhania s case 1994 207 ITR 1, effectively answer both the questions. It is not possible to say that the situation is governed by the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the assessee. For the above reasons question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, the reopening was valid---in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 2 is answered in the negative, it is not permissible to exclude the advance tax, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1996 (8) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n is when the assessee earned pension in Malaysia and received the same in India, whether such pension amount is includible in the total income of the assessee? 3. The Tribunal held that the pension earned in Malaysia and received at India is not taxable in India. While coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal followed an earlier order of its own in the case of one A.P. Kalyanakrishnan for the asst. yrs. 1970-71 and 1971-72. A.P. Kalyanakrishnan s case came up for consideration before this Court and the decision taken thereon is reported in CIT vs. A.P. Kalyanakrishnan (1992) 195 ITR 534 (Mad) TC 39R.302 wherein this Court held that inasmuch as the pension was earned outside India and the same was received in India where the assessee is living, it is earned not in India and, therefore, the pension amount cannot be included in the total income of the assessee. In view of the abovesaid decision, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department.
-
1996 (8) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... edication of the property to the trust was made on the same date, the assessee is not entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)(v) of the Act. On a reading of the trust deed, it was pointed out that the trust was created earlier and in the same trust deed the said property was dedicated to the said trust. Therefore, gift was made after the trust was created. There is also a decision of this Court in CGT vs. Yateshwari Saradapriya (1987) 61 CTR (Mad) 171 (1985) 153 ITR 477 (Mad) TC 36R.309, wherein this Court held that where under a single deed when the trust was created and in the same deed the property was dedicated to the said trust, the trust is entitled to exemption under s. 5(1)(v) of the Act. As against the decision in CGT vs. Yateshwari Saradapriya special leave petition filed was rejected. Thus, considering the facts arising in this case, in the light of the decisions cited supra, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (8) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Concealment Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... account of the deletion of sub-s. (2) of s. 274 by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, w.e.f. 1st April, 1976. The IAC did not lose the jurisdiction to continue with the proceedings pending before him on 31st March, 1976. He was entitled to continue with those proceedings and pass appropriate orders according to law. 3. In the present case, the penalty had been levied on 27th March, 1976, for the asst. yrs. 1966-67 and 1971-72. The assessment was completed on 26th March, 1976. Reference by the ITO was made on 26th March, 1976. On these facts and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra the order passed by the Tribunal is unsustainable. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. Since the levy of penalty was not dealt with on the merits, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the case on the merits in accordance with law and after giving opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned. No costs.
-
1996 (8) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Information, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... e audit report contains only pointing out of factual position and there is no pointing of any question of law that has got to be applied in this case. Thus, considering the facts arising in this case, and in the absence of any evidence on the side of the Department that the audit report contains pointing out of only the factual position, we hold that the Tribunal was correct in coming to the conclusion that the audit report forms the basis for reopening the assessment under s. 147(b) of the Act. The presumption is that the internal audit report would have contained particular pointing out of question of law that has got to be applied in this case. In that view of the matter, we see no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in holding that the reassessments made under s. 147 (b) of the Act are bad in law in the assessment years under consideration. In that view of the matter, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (8) TMI 14 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Carry Forward And Set Off, Law Applicable, Applicability Of Precedent ... ... ... ... ..... d notice was not given and time had not been extended by the Assessing Officer, losses had to be determined and carried forward. Therefore, this judgment was good law till the section was amended by the Amending Act of 1987 with effect from April 1, 1989. In the present case, in fact, in section 139(4), as it stood at the relevant time, the period prescribed was more than two years from the end of the assessment year in cases where assessment was not done. Now admittedly in this case the return was filed in 1986 before the assessment for the relevant year was made on November 11, 1987. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the view taken by the Commissioner is not correct as the loss of the assessee had to be carried forward according to the unamended provisions of section 139(4) as well as section 80, as they stood prior to the amendment of 1987 which came into effect from April 1, 1989. We, therefore, answer both the questions in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1996 (8) TMI 13 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Entry Tax, Year Of Payment, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ovember 2, 1981, falling in the relevant year, i.e., ending Diwali 1982 and, therefore, it was taken to be the assessment year 1983-84. Therefore, the pragmatic approach would be that in fact the assessee was held liable on account of the letter written by the Commissioner of Sales Tax and he deposited that amount during that year. That shows that the actual liability accrued to the assessee when he had deposited the amount in that year and accordingly he claimed deduction during 1983-84. Deduction was thus rightly allowed to the assessee taking a pragmatic approach in the matter. Therefore, we answer the second question in favour of the assessee. So far as the first question is concerned, we need not answer it, because once we answer the second question in favour of the assessee, it is not proper to answer the first question, as it is secondary. Hence, in this view of the matter, we answer the second question in favour of the assessee and need not answer the first question.
-
1996 (8) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Surtax, Computation Of Capital ... ... ... ... ..... from the capital for the purpose of surtax assessment ? A similar question came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Indian Tube Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT 1992 194 ITR 102, wherein the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court in Indian Tube Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1981 132 ITR 293 (Cal) (Appex), and held that though the general body of the shareholders resolved and appropriated the sum of Rs. 76 lakhs towards dividend from the reserve of Rs. 90 lakhs on May 31, 1963, the appropriation related back to the calendar year 1962 to which it related and, as on 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. In other words, the Supreme Court was of the view that the dividends declared should be deducted from the capital for the purpose of surtax assessment. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us, in the negative and in favour of the Department.
-
1996 (8) TMI 11 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Concealment, Loss Return ... ... ... ... ..... by us on examination of the material, we further find that this is a case where there was no explanation whatsoever. This is after considering the so-called explanations tendered on record. The material on record further shows that even the feeble attempt to place on record the so-called explanation, it will have to be termed as false explanation . It is then clear that the situation will be governed by clause (A) of Explanation 1, the proviso having nothing to do with the same. In this situation the deeming provision of Explanation 1 would also operate to conclude that the income has been concealed by the assessee. In this situation, the order of the Tribunal gets endorsement from us. For the above reasons, we answer all the questions affirmatively, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1996 (8) TMI 10 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
HUF, Wealth Tax, Gift ... ... ... ... ..... rst appellate authority, is fittingly frangible. The label is not euonym. May be, we would have felt inclined to agree with the Revenue if there was no levy of gift-tax on the same amount. The Revenue has no solution to this big if and remains unable to unknot the conundrum. Law and justice have to be seen to live in harmony. We thus answer the question in both these cases in the negative, i.e., against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Strangely enough, the validity of gift was considered in wealth-tax proceedings. These miscellaneous civil cases are thus decided in the terms indicated above but with no orders as to costs. Counsel fee for each side in each case is, however, fixed at Rs. 750 if certified. Transmit a copy of this order to the Tribunal for further action in the light of our answer in conformity with law. Retain this order in Income-tax Reference No. 19 of 1995 and place its copy in the record of Income-tax Reference No. 20 of 1995 for ready reference.
-
1996 (8) TMI 9 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Deemed Dividend, Book Profits, Unabsorbed Depreciation, Unabsorbed Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... years whereas unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward indefinitely. Similar view is taken by this court in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 42 of 1989 Azad Bus Service v. CIT decided on August 21, 1996 (sic). It is thus clear that unabsorbed depreciation can be carried forward indefinitely. That being so, we are satisfied that the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 15,49,066 representing earlier years, in the place of unabsorbed business loss of Rs. 7,78,541, for determining the book profit of the year. In the result, we answer question No. (i) in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In view of this answer, we do not consider and answer questions Nos. (ii) and (iii) as submitted and noted above. This miscellaneous civil case is thus disposed of in terms indicated above, 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.
....
|
