|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 63 Records
-
1966 (8) TMI 23
Issues:
1. Can the assessee be permitted to withdraw the reference made under section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957?
2. Is the High Court obligated to answer a reference under section 27 if the party who caused the reference to be made does not appear at the hearing or expresses disinterest in the reference being answered?
Analysis:
1. The judgment involved a reference under section 27 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, regarding the assessability of ancestral property in the hands of the sole surviving coparcener. The assessee sought to withdraw the reference, stating lack of interest in "prosecuting the reference." The court deliberated on the permissibility of allowing the withdrawal of a reference not addressed in the Act. It was concluded that since section 27 does not provide for withdrawal of a reference, the power to withdraw lies with the Tribunal, not the party causing the reference. The court noted that if the party fails to appear or expresses disinterest, the High Court may decline to answer the reference, as per sub-section (6) of section 27.
2. The judgment discussed the obligation of the High Court to answer a reference under section 27 if the party causing the reference does not participate in the hearing or expresses disinterest. Citing precedents, the court highlighted that a hearing of the case is essential before deciding the question of law raised in the reference. The judgment referred to cases where the High Court declined to answer references when the party causing the reference did not appear at the hearing. It emphasized that the High Court is not bound to answer a reference if the party does not participate or expresses disinterest, as the obligation to decide the question of law arises only after a hearing takes place.
3. The judgment cited various cases to support the view that once a reference is made by the Tribunal, the party causing the reference cannot unilaterally withdraw it. It referenced a case where the Calcutta High Court answered a reference despite the party's request to withdraw, emphasizing that the reference must be decided by the High Court unless the party fails to appear or take interest in the matter. In the present case, as the assessee and the department expressed disinterest in pursuing the reference, the court declined to answer the question referred, granting costs to the Commissioner of Wealth-tax for appearing in the proceedings.
-
1966 (8) TMI 22
Whether the 40 % of the profits of the business of A payable to the two Thavazhies is assessable as `unearned income` in the hands of the trustees u/s 41 of the IT Act, 1922, and subject to the levy of a special surcharge - this case will not fall u/s 41 - here a trust has been created in relation to the business which has been held by the Supreme Court to be property and the trustee does not carry on the business on behalf of anybody else
-
1966 (8) TMI 21
Issues:
1. Entitlement to registration for assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62.
2. Confirmation of the order directing assessment as an unregistered firm.
Analysis:
The case involved a firm seeking renewal of registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. The Income-tax Officer initially granted renewal, but the Commissioner of Income-tax later canceled the registration, directing assessment as an unregistered firm. The Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to the reference to the High Court. The partnership deed of the firm, initially constituted by a partnership among a father and his five sons, raised questions about the entitlement to registration based on the share of profits and losses among the partners, including minors represented by their mother.
The High Court considered precedents set by the Supreme Court in similar cases, emphasizing the distinction between cases where minors were admitted to the benefits of the partnership versus being made full partners. The court highlighted clauses in the partnership deeds that determined the sharing of profits and losses, crucial in determining the nature of partnership rights conferred upon the minors. The court referred to specific clauses in the deeds and compared them to the clauses in the Supreme Court judgments to establish the firm's entitlement to registration.
In analyzing the partnership deeds and relevant legal provisions, the High Court concluded that the minors were only admitted to the benefits of the partnership without incurring personal liability for the firm's acts. The court found that the clauses in the deeds did not impose personal liability on the minors, aligning with the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. Therefore, the refusal of registration by the authorities was deemed unjustified, and the court ruled in favor of the assessee, answering the first question in the negative.
As a result of the favorable decision on the first issue, the second question regarding the confirmation of the order directing assessment as an unregistered firm did not require consideration. The High Court ordered the case accordingly, with no costs imposed on either party. The judgment was to be communicated to the Appellate Tribunal as per the requirements of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
-
1966 (8) TMI 20
Issues:
1. Justification of penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Detailed Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Kerala involved a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the levy of penalty on the assessee under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Tribunal had reduced an addition made to the assessee's income to Rs. 30,000 for the assessment year 1952-53 based on discrepancies found in the stock register. The Income-tax Officer imposed a penalty under section 28(3) on the assessee, which was initially set aside by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but restored by the Tribunal. The central issue was whether the penalty imposed was justified under section 28(1)(c) based on the discrepancies in the stock register (para 1-3).
The High Court examined the Tribunal's order and emphasized the penal nature of proceedings under section 28, requiring a higher burden of proof akin to a criminal prosecution. The court cited precedents highlighting the necessity of additional material beyond a mere falsity of explanation to establish guilt under section 28(1)(c). The court referenced the Madras High Court's view that the department must prove the assessee's guilt satisfactorily. The court noted that the Tribunal primarily focused on the acceptability of the assessee's explanation for the discrepancies without establishing deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, as required by section 28(1)(c) (para 4-7).
The High Court critically analyzed the Tribunal's reasoning and found the conclusions insufficient to establish the deliberate default on the part of the assessee as mandated by section 28(1)(c). The court emphasized the need for positive proof or material indicating the acquisition of income by the assessee, which was lacking in the present case. The court highlighted that discrepancies in the stock register should have a clear connection to income generation, which was not adequately demonstrated. Ultimately, the court answered the reference question in the negative, favoring the assessee and directing each party to bear their costs in the income-tax referred case (para 8-10).
-
1966 (8) TMI 19
Issues:
1. Whether income from felling of trees from forests is subject to income-tax.
2. Determination of income as capital or revenue receipt.
3. Interpretation of the clear felling method under the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment by the High Court of Kerala involved a reference by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the taxability of income from felling trees in a forest. The primary issue was whether the amount received for felling trees should be treated as a capital or revenue receipt for income-tax purposes for the assessment year 1959-60.
2. The Court considered the contention of the department that the amount received for felling trees should be treated as a capital transaction. However, the Court analyzed the nature of the income received and concluded that if the amount was for the regeneration and future growth of trees, it should be considered a revenue receipt subject to income-tax, rather than a capital receipt.
3. The Court examined the specific conditions under the Madras Preservation of Private Forests Act, 1949, related to the clear felling method. It noted that under this method, trees were to be felled in a way that ensured regeneration and future growth, rather than complete removal with roots. The conditions specified in the Act emphasized leaving the roots intact to allow for future growth, indicating a revenue nature of the income received from such activities.
4. The Court determined that the income of Rs. 75,000 from the felling of trees under the clear felling method should be considered as revenue income, not capital income. The judgment was made against the assessee and in favor of the department, emphasizing that the income was for future growth and regeneration, aligning it with revenue nature rather than capital.
5. Additionally, the Court addressed a submission regarding a lease deed dated September 11, 1957, stating that it should not be considered as additional evidence. The Court clarified that the judgment was not based on the lease deed but on the nature of the income received from the felling of trees under the clear felling method.
6. Finally, the Court directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the Appellate Tribunal as required by the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the income tax implications of revenue received from felling trees in private forests under specific statutory rules, emphasizing the distinction between capital and revenue receipts.
-
1966 (8) TMI 18
Whether the assessee-company was at all entitled to set off the loss of Rs. 11,875 suffered by it on a joint venture against its other income - held, no - because assessee-company was not the same as the assessee in the joint venture which was either an unregistered firm or an association of persons
-
1966 (8) TMI 17
Assessee was the holder of an impartible estate, and, by an indenture, granted to his wife two premises for life by way of supplementary khorposh (maintenance) grant - transfer cannot be taken as a transfer by the husband of his assets to his wife - provision u/s 16(3)(a)(iii) cannot, therefore, be attracted
-
1966 (8) TMI 16
Whether the assessment to wealth-tax for the asst. yr. 1960-61 had been rightly made on the assessee in the status of an individual - as there was no other coparcener with the assessee on the valuation date, the assessment to wealth-tax was rightly made on the basis that the assessee was an individual
-
1966 (8) TMI 15
ITO disallowed the amount of sales tax liability claimed by the assessee on the ground that same was under dispute and assessee did not pay the amount - amount which was claimed by the assessee as a deduction on account of sales tax was not deductible as a business expense
-
1966 (8) TMI 14
Assessee transferred a certain sum to another concern in joint loan a/c in his name and in the name of other two persons who were standing surities for the assessee - inclusion of the entire interest credited in the account books of CS Pvt. Ltd. in the joint loan account of M/s. BRP, IAP & HRP in the assessments of the assessee is legal
-
1966 (8) TMI 13
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of reopening the assessment under Section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52.
2. Nature of the amount received under sub-leases dated February 21, 1950, and November 20, 1956-whether they are capital receipts or revenue receipts liable to income tax.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of Reopening the Assessment under Section 34(1)(a):
The first issue concerns whether the Income-tax Department was justified in reopening the assessment under Section 34(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1950-51 and 1951-52. The court analyzed the applicability of Section 34(1)(a) and (b) and concluded that:
- Section 34(1)(a) applies when income has escaped assessment due to the assessee's omission or failure to file a return or disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.
- Section 34(1)(b) applies when income has escaped assessment due to information coming into the possession of the Income-tax Officer, but without any omission or failure on the part of the assessee.
The court found that no returns were filed by the assessee for the relevant years, which justified the reopening under Section 34(1)(a). The letters sent by the assessee to the Income-tax Officer did not disclose the lease amounts, leading to the conclusion that the department was not put on notice about the income in time. Therefore, the action of the Income-tax Officer in issuing the notice was upheld as valid.
2. Nature of the Amount Received Under Sub-leases:
The second issue pertains to whether the amounts received under the sub-leases dated February 21, 1950, and November 20, 1956, are capital receipts or revenue receipts.
- The court examined the agreements and concluded that they were essentially sub-leases and not outright sales of capital assets.
- The agreements allowed the sub-lessee to use the mineral rights for a specified period, with payments made in lump sums, which were essentially advance rent rather than capital payments.
- The court noted that the payments were intended as compensation for the use and occupation of the mineral wealth, making them revenue receipts.
- The court referenced various judicial precedents to delineate the difference between capital receipts (salami) and revenue receipts (rent), concluding that the payments in question were revenue receipts.
The court emphasized that the true nature of payments should be judged from a business or accountancy perspective rather than strictly legalistic terms. The agreements were seen as means for the assessee to derive income from the sub-leases rather than realizing the capital asset.
Conclusion:
The court answered both questions in favor of the Income-tax Department:
1. The reopening of the assessment under Section 34(1)(a) was justified.
2. The amounts received under the sub-leases were revenue receipts and thus liable to income tax.
The assessee was directed to pay the costs of the department, with an advocate's fee of Rs. 150.
-
1966 (8) TMI 12
Issues: Whether two sets of income derived by purportedly distinct firms during the same accounting year can be added for assessment.
Analysis:
The case involved a reference sought by the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, regarding the aggregation of income derived by two purportedly distinct firms during the same accounting year for assessment. The partnership in question was initially constituted under an instrument of partnership on May 7, 1951, with three partners, one of whom retired on July 31, 1957. Subsequently, the remaining two partners formed a new partnership under an instrument of partnership executed on August 1, 1957. The Income-tax Officer initially aggregated the income earned before and after the retirement, treating it as a single firm. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal found that there were two distinct firms, with income earned before the retirement belonging to the old firm and income earned after the formation of the new partnership belonging to the new firm.
The key question before the court was whether the aggregation of income from the two periods was justified. The court emphasized the principle that when a partner retires, the remaining partners have the option to continue the old firm or dissolve it and form a new partnership. The determination of whether a new partnership was formed or the old one continued depends on various factors, including the terms and conditions of the partnerships. The court noted that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal found that a new partnership was indeed formed by the remaining partners, and there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. The execution of the new instrument of partnership was considered prima facie evidence of the formation of a new partnership, and there was no basis to question the validity of that finding.
Therefore, the court concluded that the aggregation of income from the two periods was not justified, as there were two distinct firms in existence. The court ruled in favor of the assessee, highlighting that the formation of the new partnership was valid and not a mere artifice to circumvent the law. The assessee was awarded costs in the reference, including advocate's fees.
-
1966 (8) TMI 11
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of reassessment under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer under Section 34(1)(b).
3. Availability of material for reassessment.
4. Procedural propriety of the Tribunal's order.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Reassessment under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922:
The primary issue was whether the reassessment for the assessment year 1955-56 under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act, 1922, was valid. The assessee firm had initially returned an income of Rs. 1,21,058, which was accepted by the Income-tax Officer on October 11, 1956. However, the assessment was reopened, and Rs. 10,000 was added as undisclosed income. The Tribunal referred the question of the validity of this reassessment to the court.
2. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer under Section 34(1)(b):
The court examined whether the Income-tax Officer had the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Section 34(1)(b). The key elements for exercising this power are the possession of new information and the belief that income has escaped assessment. The court noted that the Tribunal's observation in the appeals of two partners, which suggested that the sum of Rs. 2,500 should be assessed in the hands of the firm, amounted to new information. This new information gave the Income-tax Officer the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment.
3. Availability of Material for Reassessment:
The court considered whether there were sufficient materials to support the reassessment. The Tribunal had observed that the credits in the accounts of the lady partners were not satisfactorily explained and should be considered as income from undisclosed sources. The court found that the Tribunal's observation constituted new information that justified the reassessment. However, the court also noted that the Tribunal failed to consider whether there were materials before the Income-tax Officer to hold that the income had escaped assessment.
4. Procedural Propriety of the Tribunal's Order:
The court found that the Tribunal's order was defective because it did not address all the contentions raised by the assessee. Specifically, the Tribunal did not consider the argument that there was no material to support the additions made in the reassessment. The court emphasized that the Tribunal must clearly set out the facts, contentions, and reasons for its findings. The failure to do so rendered the Tribunal's order invalid.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that while the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction under Section 34(1)(b) to reopen the assessment based on new information, the Tribunal's order was procedurally defective. The Tribunal had not considered all the contentions raised by the assessee, particularly the lack of material to support the reassessment. Therefore, the court answered the question in favor of the assessee and directed the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal afresh after considering all the contentions on their merits. The assessee was awarded costs of Rs. 250.
-
1966 (8) TMI 10
The High Court of Madras held that a substantial error in a certificate issued for arrears due would affect the Collector's jurisdiction to recover the amount under the Revenue Recovery Act. The court dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the decision to quash the proceedings due to the error in the arrears amount.
-
1966 (8) TMI 9
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the loss of Rs. 21,770 suffered by the corporation on the sale of securities was rightly treated as a capital loss.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Nature of Loss: Trading Loss vs. Capital Loss
The primary issue was whether the loss amounting to Rs. 21,770 sustained by the assessee (the Rajasthan Financial Corporation) as a result of the sale of certain Government securities between May 8, 1958, and May 25, 1958, could be treated as a trading loss or a capital loss.
The Income-tax Officer initially disallowed the claim, observing that the corporation did not deal in securities and its primary objective was to grant loans to industrial undertakings. Hence, the loss was deemed a capital loss.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner, however, noted that the corporation's business was analogous to that of a banking concern and that it had to keep its funds in easily realisable securities. He concluded that the loss should be allowed as a revenue loss despite being shown as an investment in the balance sheet.
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal disagreed with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, holding that the corporation could not be regarded as carrying on banking business. The Tribunal reasoned that the investment in securities was due to excess capital not immediately needed by the corporation and not because of the peculiar nature of its business. Consequently, the Tribunal held the loss to be a capital loss.
2. Arguments by the Corporation
Mr. M. D. Bhargava, representing the corporation, argued that the corporation was engaged in a business analogous to banking, and thus its investments in securities should be regarded as stock-in-trade. He contended that the loss in the value of the stock-in-trade should be treated as a business loss. He further argued that the Tribunal's observations were more relevant to commercial banking than to development banking, which was the nature of the corporation's business.
3. Legal Precedents and Definitions
The court referred to the characteristics of banking as laid down in United Dominions Trust Ltd. v. Kirkwood and the statutory definition of "banking" under section 5(1)(b) of the Banking Companies Act, 1949. The court concluded that the corporation was not conducting banking business as commonly understood.
The court also considered the principles laid down in Punjab Co-operative Bank Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Sardar Indra Singh & Sons Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. The test was whether the sale of securities was connected with the assessee's business, making the loss a trading loss.
4. Analysis of Facts and Circumstances
The court examined the corporation's financial activities and obligations, noting that the corporation had substantial loan commitments and minimal cash on hand. The sale of securities was necessitated by the need to disburse sanctioned loans. The court reviewed the managing director's letter and annual reports, concluding that the sale of securities was closely linked to the corporation's business of advancing loans to industrial concerns.
5. Statutory Functions and Business Principles
The court referred to the relevant provisions of the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951, emphasizing that the corporation's primary function was to support industrial concerns. The directive from the Government underscored the need to manage investments prudently to avoid frequent sales or borrowing against securities.
Conclusion
The court held that the sale of securities was necessitated by the corporation's business requirements and was not merely a change of investment. The loss incurred was, therefore, a trading loss. The court answered the question in the negative, indicating that the loss should not be treated as a capital loss.
Question answered in the negative.
-
1966 (8) TMI 8
Whether assuming that there was no reasonable cause for the failures of the assessee as referred to in section 271(1)(a) and 271(1)(b), the ITO was right in applying the provisions of and imposing penalty under s. 271 of the IT Act, 1961 - Held, no
-
1966 (8) TMI 7
Whether Tribunal acted rightly in upholding the application of section 297(2)(g) read with sections 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the delay in the submission of returns - If, yes, whether on the facts here, and on a proper interpretation of section 271(1), the penalty levied has been properly computed
-
1966 (8) TMI 6
Whether the entire income of the assessee`s wife or any portion thereof from money-lending business and coffee estates was correctly added to the assessee`s income - Held, yes - money lending business carried on in the name of his wife belonged to the assessee
-
1966 (8) TMI 5
This revision arises out of an application made by the plaintiff in a suit for the production by the Income-tax Officer of certain assessment proceedings relating to the first defendant in the suit - held that section 6(c) of the General Clauses Act, which is the only clause relied on for the revenue, is not attracted to the omission of section 137. The consequence is that the general effect of repeal without reference to section 6(c) will apply
-
1966 (8) TMI 4
Inclusion in the chargeable income of a total sum of Rs. 5,853 representing the difference between the purchase and sale prices of two houses - In the absence of a finding by the Tribunal that the purchase and sale of the houses was in the course of a trade in property or constituted an adventure in the nature of trade, no tax liability would attach to the sum of Rs. 5,853
|
9911796707
