|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 71 Records
-
1973 (5) TMI 31
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Alleged violation of Article 14 of the Constitution by the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c).
Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c):
The petitioner argued that the Explanation appended to sub-section (1) of section 271, which became operative on April 1, 1964, does not apply to the return in question as it relates to the year ending March 31, 1964. The court, however, found that the Explanation applies to any return filed after it came into force, regardless of the period to which the income relates. The court stated, "On its plain wording, the explanation applies to the income returned by an assessee after it came into force irrespective of the fact whether the income related to a period prior to April 1, 1964, or thereafter." Therefore, the penalty clause (c) can be invoked for any false return filed after the Explanation's effective date.
2. Alleged Violation of Article 14:
The petitioner contended that the Explanation offends Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. The court examined whether the Explanation creates a classification that is rational and whether this classification has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.
The court acknowledged that the Explanation does create two classes of assessees: those whose returned income is less than 80% of the assessed income and those whose returned income is not less than 80% of the assessed income. The court stated, "Equality before the law means that among equals the law should be identical and that the like should be treated alike."
The court determined that the classification is based on "intelligible differentia" and has a rational nexus to the object of the Explanation, which is to provide effective checks against income-tax evasion. The court noted, "The permissible classification must satisfy two conditions, namely, (1) it must be founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others who are left out of the group, and (2) the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the impugned provision."
The court further elaborated that the Explanation aims to place the burden of proof on the assessee where the difference between returned and actual income is more than 20%. This presumption of concealment or inaccuracy is rebuttable, allowing the assessee to prove otherwise. The court found that this classification and the shifting of the burden of proof are justified and do not violate Article 14.
The court also referenced a decision by the Allahabad High Court in Saeed Ahmad v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, which supported the view that the Explanation is a rule of evidence and does not violate Article 14. The court stated, "The class of persons to whom the Explanation applies is a rational classification and has nexus with the object intended to be achieved, namely, of discouraging the concealment of the particulars of one's income during the course of assessment."
In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) and finding no violation of Article 14. The court stated, "In the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs."
Separate Judgment:
BAHARUL ISLAM J. concurred with the judgment delivered, stating, "I agree."
Summary:
The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the imposition of a penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court held that the Explanation to Section 271(1)(c), which became effective on April 1, 1964, applies to any return filed after that date, irrespective of the period to which the income relates. The court also found that the Explanation does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution, as the classification it creates is based on intelligible differentia and has a rational relation to the object of preventing income-tax evasion. The petition was dismissed with costs, and the rule issued by the court was discharged.
-
1973 (5) TMI 30
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of wealth-tax under clause (b) of section 23A(1) for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60.
2. Entitlement of the assessee to a notice for further distribution of dividend under sub-section (2) of section 23A for the assessment year 1959-60.
3. Application of section 23A regarding the reasonableness of the declared dividends considering the profits made in the respective previous years.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Deduction of Wealth-Tax under Clause (b) of Section 23A(1):
The primary issue revolves around whether wealth-tax should be deducted from the total income of the previous years 1957 and 1958 for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60, respectively. The Tribunal had held that wealth-tax deductible from the total income of the previous year 1957 was the wealth-tax for the assessment year 1957-58, and similarly, for the previous year 1958, it was the wealth-tax for the assessment year 1958-59. However, the court emphasized that for a tax to be deductible under clause (b) of section 23A(1), it must be "in excess of the amount, if any, which has been allowed in computing the total income." Given the retrospective effect of section 4 of the Income-tax (Amendment) Act, 1972, which explicitly disallows wealth-tax in the computation of income, the court concluded that wealth-tax could not be deducted under clause (b) of section 23A(1) for the relevant assessment years. Therefore, the court answered both questions 1 and 2 in the negative, stating that wealth-tax cannot be deducted from the total income for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60.
2. Entitlement to Notice for Further Distribution of Dividend:
Since the answers to questions 1 and 2 were against the assessee, question 3, which pertained to whether the assessee is entitled to a notice from the Income-tax Officer for further distribution of dividend for the assessment year 1959-60, did not require an answer.
3. Application of Section 23A Regarding Reasonableness of Declared Dividends:
The fourth issue examined whether the Tribunal was justified in applying section 23A on the grounds that declaring a larger dividend than what was declared would not be unreasonable, considering the profits made in the respective previous years. The court reiterated that the computation of profits must be made from a commercial point of view, as established by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gangadhar Banerjee & Co. (P.) Ltd. and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Asiatic Textiles Ltd. The Tribunal had allowed the reserve for doubtful debts but excluded the provision for contingencies, contribution to repairs fund, and sinking fund for redemption of debentures from the commercial profits, deeming them excessive or not properly justified. The court agreed with the Tribunal's assessment, noting that the Tribunal had followed the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, and thus, the application of section 23A was justified. The court answered question 4 in the affirmative, endorsing the Tribunal's decision that the payment of a larger dividend than what was declared would not have been unreasonable.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that wealth-tax cannot be deducted under clause (b) of section 23A(1) for the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. Consequently, the question of notice for further distribution of dividend did not arise. The court upheld the Tribunal's application of section 23A, affirming that declaring a larger dividend would not have been unreasonable based on the commercial profits of the respective years. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs.
-
1973 (5) TMI 29
Issues: Jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer to issue notices under section 206 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and validity of penalty proceedings under section 276(b) for failure to furnish annual return.
Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a notice from the Income-tax Officer calling for the annual return for the financial year 1967-68. The petitioner, managing a tea estate, argued that the Officer lacked jurisdiction as the estate was assessed by a different Officer. The key issue was whether the Officer had the authority to issue the notices and initiate penalty proceedings under section 276(b) of the Act.
The Act mandates employers to deduct income tax on salaries and furnish annual returns under section 206 within 30 days from March 31 each year. Failure to comply may result in penalties under section 276(b) of the Act. The Rules specify the procedure for filing returns, including the form and delivery to the designated Income-tax Officer.
The respondents argued that an order by the Commissioner granted jurisdiction to the Officer for employees within Siliguri's revenue sub-division. However, the Court found that this order did not confer the authority to demand a return under section 206. The absence of an order under section 126 of the Act assigning jurisdiction to the Officer was crucial.
The Court emphasized that the Officer must have the competence and jurisdiction as per Rule 32(2) of the Rules to demand the return. The Officer's reliance on Rule 32(2)(ii) was deemed unsubstantiated as the petitioner's office responsible for paying salaries was not within the Officer's jurisdiction.
Consequently, the Court quashed the notices issued by the Officer and ordered to forbear from acting on them. The ruling did not address the petitioner's liability for penalties or consequences under the Act, preserving the right of the appropriate Officer to take lawful actions. The judgment was made absolute without costs.
In conclusion, the Court's decision centered on the Officer's lack of jurisdiction to demand the annual return under section 206 of the Act, leading to the nullification of the notices and penalty proceedings initiated by the Officer.
-
1973 (5) TMI 28
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of income derived from lease-rent: "profits and gains of business" vs. "income from other sources".
Detailed Analysis:
P The primary issue in this case is whether the income derived by the assessee-company from the lease-rent of its assets during the specified years is assessable under "profits and gains of business" or "income from other sources". The assessment years in question are 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63, and 1963-64.
P The assessee-company, a limited company engaged in the manufacture of textiles, faced financial difficulties starting from 1949, leading to the cessation of its manufacturing activities by December 1953. A winding-up petition was filed in May 1956, and the Industrial Finance Corporation took possession of the company's immovable properties. Subsequently, a scheme was approved by the High Court under which the business assets were let out to M/s. Fibres Dealers (Pvt.) Ltd., Calcutta, for Rs. 2,50,000 per year to pay off creditors. The lease was for ten years with an option for renewal.
P Initially, the lease income was assessed under "profits and gains of business" for the years 1957-58 to 1959-60. However, for the subsequent years, the Income-tax Officer assessed it under "income from other sources". The assessee-company appealed, arguing that the assets were exploited commercially to alleviate financial distress, indicating no intention to discontinue business activities. The Tribunal found that the company intended to restart manufacturing after resolving its financial issues and directed the income to be treated as business income.
P The Tribunal's findings included:
1. The company was not formed to let out its assets on hire.
2. The leasing was a temporary measure due to financial crises.
3. The company liquidated its liabilities and regained possession of its assets.
4. The company avoided a distress sale of its machinery.
5. The company maintained its assets with the intention to restart manufacturing.
P The Tribunal inferred that the company's intention in leasing its assets was to exploit them commercially for business purposes. The assessee argued that the income from leasing commercial assets should be considered business income, citing several Supreme Court decisions.
P In Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax v. Shri Lakshmi Silk Mills Ltd. [1951] 20 ITR 451 (SC), the Supreme Court held that income from a commercial asset, whether used by the owner or let out, is business income. The court emphasized that the asset's commercial nature and the owner's intention to exploit it for business purposes are crucial.
P In Narain Swadeshi Weaving Mills v. Commissioner of Excess Profits Tax [1954] 26 ITR 765 (SC), the Supreme Court distinguished between permanent discontinuation of business and temporary cessation due to exigencies. The latter does not change the commercial nature of the assets.
P The Bombay High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. National Mills Co. Ltd. [1958] 34 ITR 155 (Bom) held that leasing business assets temporarily does not change their commercial nature, and the income remains business income unless the business is permanently discontinued.
P The Tribunal's finding that the assessee-company intended to restart its business after resolving financial issues was supported by sufficient material. Therefore, the income from leasing the plant and machinery was business income and could be set off against previous business losses under section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
P The revenue cited Seth Banarsi Das Gupta v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1977] 106 ITR 559 (All), where the income from leasing assets was not considered business income because the firm had permanently stopped its business. This case was distinguished as the firm had ceased all business activities, unlike the temporary cessation in the present case.
P The court concluded that the income derived by the assessee-company from leasing its assets during the specified years is assessable under "profits and gains of business". The assessee was entitled to set off this income against previous business losses.
P The court answered the referred question in favor of the assessee, allowing the income to be taxed under "profits and gains of business". The assessee was awarded costs assessed at Rs. 200, with the same fee for the department's counsel.
-
1973 (5) TMI 27
Issues:
- Appeal against levy of interest under section 18A(6)/18A(8)
- Interpretation of jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
- Consideration of whether penal interest is appealable under section 30
- Analysis of Supreme Court decisions regarding the appealability of penal interest
- Examination of the expression "denying his liability to be assessed under the Act" in section 30
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, involving an appeal against the levy of interest under section 18A(6)/18A(8). The Appellate Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal as incompetent, leading to a second appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The central issue revolved around whether an appeal lies against the imposition of penal interest under the Act.
The jurisdiction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax is delineated in section 30 of the Act, which enumerates the orders appealable. Notably, orders under section 18A(6) or section 18A(8) are not included in the list of appealable orders under section 30. Previous court decisions affirmed this position, emphasizing that no appeal lies against orders related to interest under section 18A(6)/18A(8).
The judgment delves into the distinction between tax, penalty, and interest under the Income-tax Act. While tax and penalty have provisions for appeal, interest, specifically penal interest, lacks a specific appeal provision. The absence of an appeal against interest is attributed to historical developments in the legislation and the lack of subsequent amendments to provide for such appeals.
The analysis further scrutinizes Supreme Court decisions, notably the case of M. Chockalingam and M. Meyyappan v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which discussed the necessity of a notice for the imposition of penal interest. Despite broader interpretations of the term "assessment," the judgment clarifies that section 30 does not provide for an appeal against an assessment order as such, focusing instead on specific aspects like income computation and tax determination.
Moreover, the judgment explores the expression "denying his liability to be assessed under the Act" in section 30, emphasizing that a total denial of liability is required for an appeal. The case law cited illustrates instances where the denial of liability was deemed applicable, contrasting with the present situation where the appeal pertained solely to the imposition of penal interest.
Ultimately, the court upheld the dismissal of the appeal, affirming the non-appealability of orders related to penal interest under section 18A(6)/18A(8). The judgment underscores the legislative intent behind appeal provisions and the limitations on expanding appeal rights beyond statutory frameworks, aligning with previous judicial interpretations on the matter.
-
1973 (5) TMI 26
Issues:
1. Assessment made under the wrong Act of 1922 instead of the Act of 1961.
2. Competency of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to direct assessment under the Act of 1961 after the time limit.
3. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer in relation to the assessment order.
4. Power of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner to set aside the assessment and refer the case back.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The initial assessment was made under the Act of 1922 instead of the Act of 1961. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the assessment should have been made under the Act of 1961. The Tribunal accepted the contention that the assessment under the wrong Act was invalid. However, the High Court considered whether the assessment order was null and void or merely incorrect.
Issue 2:
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed the Income-tax Officer to complete the assessment under the Act of 1961. The assessee contended that this direction was invalid as it revived a time-barred assessment. The Tribunal held that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could not extend the time limit for a valid assessment. The High Court analyzed the powers of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in setting aside the assessment and referring the case back.
Issue 3:
The High Court examined whether the Income-tax Officer's order was null and void or merely irregular. It referred to previous judgments to determine that mentioning a wrong provision of law does not render the order null and void. The Court held that the order should be related to the jurisdiction the officer had, i.e., the Act of 1961.
Issue 4:
The High Court concluded that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had the power to set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the Income-tax Officer under section 251 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court determined that the order was not null and void, allowing for the referral back to the Income-tax Officer for a correct assessment under the Act of 1961.
In conclusion, the High Court answered the question in the negative, in favor of the department and against the assessee. The Court emphasized that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had acted within his powers in setting aside the assessment and referring the case back to the Income-tax Officer. The judgment clarified the jurisdictional issues and the powers of the authorities involved in the assessment process.
-
1973 (5) TMI 25
" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of section 49A and Explanation (ii) to section 49D of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in deducting the amount of abatement allowable under the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation with Pakistan from the amount of the Indian income-tax for the purpose of determination of the Indian rate of tax mentioned in clause (b) of section 49D(3) of the said Act ? " - this question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee
-
1973 (5) TMI 24
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - father gifts money to sons, they invest the money and enter into partnership with the father - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, were applicable to this case ? " - we are of the opinion that the donees in the present case did not enjoy the possession of the donated amount of Rs. 1 lakh to the entire exclusion of the donor as long as it formed the part of the capital of the firm of which the donor was a partner. - Question answered in the affirmative
-
1973 (5) TMI 23
Set Off - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to carry forward and set off losses of the earlier years against dividend income of the assessee in the assessment year 1958-59 ? " - we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue
-
1973 (5) TMI 22
Initially Income-tax Officer allowed the loss on the basis of the decision of tribunal for earlier year that the particular transaction was not speculative. Whether he can subsequently reopen the assessment in view of the later opinion of the Tribunal in other cases that such transaction was speculative - " Whether the order of the Tribunal in annexures " C-1 " and " C-2 " constitute 'information' within the meaning of section 34(1)(b) so as to justify the assessment in this case being reopened ? " - In the premises, the question referred to this court must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue
-
1973 (5) TMI 21
Remuneration received by karta as director of a company - " Whether the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was right in holding that the salary received by the assessee was the income of the Hindu joint family of which the assessee was the karta, and not his individual income ? "
-
1973 (5) TMI 20
Whether the protection granted u/s 54 of 1922 Act or section 137 of 1961 Act, for the assessment records by the repealed provisions continue after repeal ? – held yes - the protection available, would still be available to the documents produced for the assessment years relating to the period prior to the repeal of these provisions. Such documents cannot be summoned by a court
-
1973 (5) TMI 19
(1) Whether Tribunal was right in holding that in computing the net assets of W.H. Harton & Co. Ltd. for the purpose of determining the break-up value of its shares the sum of Rs. 61,800 being the amount of proposed dividend should be allowed as a deduction ? (2) Whether, Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the assessee was not the owner of 32,440 shares of Rohtas Industries Ltd. ? (3) If the answer to the question No. 2 is in the negative, then whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that in respect of the shares of Rohtas Industries Ltd., only a sum of Rs. 1,63,200 should be included in the net wealth of the assessee? "In the premises, the question No. (2) will have to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and in that view the question No. (3) does not arise. But we must make it clear that the assessee was the owner of the sum of Rs. 1,63,200 and the money belonged to the assessee. In any view of the matter, therefore, in respect of this money the assessee was the owner and it belonged to the assessee and it had been rightly included in the net wealth of the assessee
-
1973 (5) TMI 18
" (1) Whether amount paid to the workmen as bonus were expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business ? (2) Whether, amount paid towards the legal charges were expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business ? (3) Whether the assessees are entitled to claim development rebate on railway sidings used by them for transporting their raw materials and finished goods ? " In this case, the very fact that the Indian Income-tax Rules enumerate railway sidings as coming within the definition of plant and machinery obviates the necessity of examining the question whether it would come within the definition of plant. As has been said already, the aforesaid Supreme Court decision makes it clear that it would come within such definition even if it had not been clearly enumerated under rule 8 - petitioner is entitled to claim development rebate on the railway sidings installed by the petitioner for transport of raw materials and finished goods
-
1973 (5) TMI 17
Transfer of case – jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer - "(i) Whether, as a matter of fact and in law, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ranchi, had jurisdiction or not ? (ii) If he had jurisdiction, whether the assessee's belief that he had no jurisdiction and his (assessee's) failure to file the return because of that erroneous belief was a sufficient cause for non-compliance with his obligation to file a return even after service of notice under section 22(2) read with section 34 of the Act ?"
-
1973 (5) TMI 16
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income from the house properties at 53A and 53B, Gariahata Road, Calcutta, was rightly included in the total income of the assessee under section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?" - "Whether, on the facts and, in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal could in law uphold the assessments for the assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56 on the notices under section 34(1)(a) with reference to the powers under section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?" - both the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue
-
1973 (5) TMI 15
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that the composite rent received by the assessee from its tenants should be split up and the amount attributable to the property only should be assessed under section 9(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, while the amount attributable to the amenities provided by the assessee to the tenants should be assessed under section 12 of the said Act?" - question is, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee
-
1973 (5) TMI 14
Appeal against best judgment assessment - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in disposing of an appeal against an assessment under section 16(5), the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should confine himself only to the materials on record at the time of assessment, i.e. the previous assessment order?" - we must hold that the Tribunal was not right in holding that in disposing of an appeal against an assessment under section 16(5), the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should confine himself only to the materials on record. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee
-
1973 (5) TMI 13
Issues:
1. Determination of whether certain sums should be considered as "reserves" for the purpose of inclusion as capital under the Schedule to the Super Profits Tax Act.
Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Madras involved the interpretation of whether specific sums should be categorized as "reserves" for capital computation under the Super Profits Tax Act. The assessee, a public limited company managed by a private limited company, had profits of Rs. 6,26,772.64 for the year ending December 31, 1961, with certain appropriations made before declaring dividends. The dispute centered around the treatment of Rs. 2,60,000 set aside for tax provision, Rs. 3,60,000 for proposed dividends, and Rs. 2,31,470 as part of capital on January 1, 1962. The Super Profits Tax Officer initially excluded these sums from capital on the grounds that they did not represent reserves on the specified date.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, following relevant legal precedents, considered the tax provision of Rs. 2,60,000 as a reserve on May 1, 1962, but found no excess amount available as a reserve due to tax payments made. Regarding the sums of Rs. 3,60,000 and Rs. 2,31,470, he determined them to be undistributed profits as of January 1, 1962, and not reserves. The Appellate Tribunal upheld this decision, emphasizing that the appropriations made by the managing agents on December 31, 1961, were administrative and not effective until authorized by the board of directors on May 31, 1962.
The High Court, in its analysis, referred to relevant legal precedents and emphasized the importance of effective appropriation dates for determining reserves. It highlighted a Supreme Court decision that allocations made on a later date should be treated as effective from the beginning of the accounting year. The Court disagreed with the Tribunal's view that the sums in question represented undistributed profits on January 1, 1962, based on the specific wording of the applicable legislation.
Regarding the specific sums in question, the Court determined that the amounts set aside for tax payments and proposed dividends did not qualify as reserves under the Act. It was noted that funds allocated for discharging specific liabilities, once paid out, could not be considered reserves available for future use. The Court directed the Tribunal to ascertain the exact tax liability of the company to determine any excess amount that could be treated as a reserve, emphasizing the need for precise calculations in such matters.
In conclusion, the Court ruled in favor of the assessee, technically answering the question in their favor. The assessee was awarded costs from the revenue, including counsel's fee of Rs. 250. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal principles governing the classification of reserves under the Super Profits Tax Act, emphasizing the need for accurate assessment of liabilities and effective appropriation dates for determining reserves for capital computation.
-
1973 (5) TMI 12
Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 - amount set apart for discharge of specific and definite liability which was actually paid later – whether it amounts to reserve - question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee so far as items relating to bonus, excess provision for taxation and the excess provision for development reserve are concerned. As regards the dividend and the actual liability for income-tax, the question is answered against the assessee.
|
9911796707
