|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 459 Records
-
2000 (2) TMI 59 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... es and not as income from business, as alleged by the respondent. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner that the very allegation made in the complaint being the basis of prosecution lodged against him has disappeared by the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal and, therefore, the respondent cannot prosecute him by making an entirely different allegation which is not stated in the complaint, is not at all sustainable. The entire allegations made by the complainant that the petitioner has wilfully filed a false return and wilfully attempted to evade the income-tax payable by him for the assessment year 1982-83 will stand. Under the circumstances, the learned Additional Chief judicial Magistrate was perfectly justified in negativing the contention of the petitioner that he is entitled to be discharged under section 245(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, and I find absolutely no scope to challenge that finding. Hence, the criminal revision petition is dismissed in limine.
-
2000 (2) TMI 58 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Compulsory Audit, Penalty, Return, Law Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... as no provision for levy of penalty for failure to submit such audit report under section 271B of the Act. It is clear that even after these amendments section 44AB does not require filing of the return along with the audit report within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 and consequently no penalty for such a default has been provided in section 271B. There is no gainsaying the fact that the penal provisions have to be construed strictly and penalty can be levied only for the defaults provided therein. Neither any additional default can be read in a provision on the ground of logic nor can a default provided therein be ignored on the ground of hardship. In the present case we are satisfied that a plain reading of section 271B shows that it does not cover the default of failure to file the return along with the audit report on or before the specified date. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in these appeals which are hereby dismissed. No costs.
-
2000 (2) TMI 57 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, Refund, Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... fit to tax defaulters and, therefore, its provisions have to be strictly complied with, if a person wants to avail of the benefit of the scheme. The tax should have remained unpaid on the date of declaration and the tax that was not in arrears on the date of the declaration, cannot be treated to be in arrears on the relevant date by a sheer fraudulent device like the one adopted by the petitioner. Jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India is a special jurisdiction conferred on the High Court to do justice and it cannot be allowed to be a tool for encouraging a fraud on public revenue. In the present case, the round about turn taken by the petitioner without any genuine grievance was solely to harm the public revenue and to gain an undeserved advantage and the High Court cannot extend a helping hand to such attempt. For the above reasons, we find no force in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondent that we assess at Rs. 2,500.
-
2000 (2) TMI 56 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Deduction, Manufacture Or Production ... ... ... ... ..... used as seeds for being sold, but in that form they retained the dual utility of being foodgrains as well as seeds. However, after it underwent the process of coating, it lost its basic character, viz., of being consumed as food by human beings and in the circumstances, the Supreme Court held that the final output ceased to be a foodgrain. That what emerged was an entirely different commodity and accordingly, the Supreme Court held that in that matter, the processing did amount to manufacture, This judgment of the Supreme Court also applies to the facts of the present case. In the present case also, the raw seeds were fit for consumption. However, after it underwent the various stages, it ceased to be fit for human consumption and it could only be used for sowing. In the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in granting relief to the assessee under s. 80HH of the IT Act. We do not see any reason to interfere with the said finding of fact. Appeal stands dismissed accordingly.
-
2000 (2) TMI 55 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration, Business Income Or Income From Property ... ... ... ... ..... on the ownership of the property. Reliance is placed on the decision of the apex court in S. G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. v. CIT 1972 83 ITR 700. Learned counsel for the Revenue is correct in his submission that much would depend upon the factual aspects, more particularly, the nature of interest in the property. Since those aspects were not considered by the Tribunal, which merely relied on some decisions for the broader principle that ownership of property and earning income by letting out property can constitute business income, we think it appropriate to remit the matter back to the Tribunal to give specific findings on the question as to who was the owner of the property, and what was the nature of the interest of the assessee therein and thereafter consider the question whether the income can constitute business income. It goes without saying that the question of grant of registration will be consequential to such finding. Tax reference is accordingly disposed of.
-
2000 (2) TMI 54 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Revision, Application For Revision, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... g to the petitioner. Obviously, the matter is also not decided on the merits. It came to be decided only on the ground of limitation. Since non-hearing of the assessee by the authority strikes at the root of the impugned order, we are left with no alternative but to quash the impugned order. The impugned order is, therefore, required to be quashed. The impugned order dated March 26, 1992, as at annexure A, is quashed and set aside. Obviously, the matter shall go back to him for reconsideration, adjudication and determination, after affording the assessee with an opportunity of hearing. The respondent authority, obviously, shall have to consider the merits of the claims made in the revision in the light of the decision of this court rendered in CIT v. Kiranbhai H. Shelat 1999 235 ITR 635 and objectively, in accordance with law. In the result, the petition is partly allowed, in the light of the aforesaid observations and directions, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
-
2000 (2) TMI 53 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To High Court, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... nsideration before the Tribunal was whether proceedings under section 148 could have been instituted when the return filed on June 20, 1982, was pending assessment. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that notice under section 148 and proceedings taken by the Department thereafter were bad in law as there could not have been reopening of the assessment when the return dated June 29, 1982, was pending. We have examined the records ourselves and we find that there is nothing to indicate how reassessment proceedings could have been instituted when the main return filed by the assessee on June 29, 1982, was still pending assessment. All proceedings have been taken thereafter pursuant to the reopening of the assessment in 1985, losing sight of the fact that the main return filed by the assessee on June 29, 1982, was pending. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal was right in annulling the assessment proceedings. Hence, no substantial question of law arises. Appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 52 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration, Genuineness Of Firms ... ... ... ... ..... tory power vested in him. We find that the explanation offered by the assessee that the division of shares as shown in the accounts was an error and was not intentional was not accepted by one of the authorities. The assessee-firm has not made any attempt to rectify the error that crept in its accounts and it was found that the error was not accidental. In our view, since the profits of the firm were divided not in accordance with the terms of the instrument of partnership, the Tribunal was justified in holding that there was no genuine firm in existence and the order of the Tribunal holding that the firm was not constituted in accordance with the partnership deed dated July 26, 1977, and hence, not a genuine firm is sustainable in law. Accordingly, we answer the common question of law referred to us in the affirmative in all the tax cases, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. The Revenue will be entitled to costs of the reference of a sum of Rs. 2,000 one set.
-
2000 (2) TMI 51 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Unexplained Investments ... ... ... ... ..... essee was not expected to be a paragon of virtue. In the purported revised return, it was stated that the loans were raised by two persons who were in charge of the execution of work, and such funds were in the savings bank account of the respective persons. We find that the Tribunal did not attach much importance to the question whether the other 13 partners had a share in the profits and whether the amount was distributed. It was for the assessee, to establish that there was no distribution among other partners, which it failed to do. These aspects are really not of any importance, in view of our conclusion that no cash was available to be invested. The Tribunal acted on irrelevant materials, leaving out of consideration relevant materials and, therefore, its order is vitiated. Its conclusions are not supportable on the basis of the materials on record. Our answer to both the questions referred to above is, in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
-
2000 (2) TMI 50 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Company, Interpretation Of Taxing Statutes ... ... ... ... ..... lain reading of the provision, the irresistible conclusion is that section 205(1), first proviso, clause (b) of the Companies Act brings out the unabsorbed portion of the amount of depreciation already provided for computing the loss for the year. The expressions the amount provided for depreciation and arrived at in both cases after providing for depreciation make it abundantly clear that in this clause loss refers to the amount of loss arrived at after taking into account the amount of depreciation provided in the profit and loss account. The above position has been elaborately dealt with by the apex court in Surana Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy CIT 1999 237 ITR 777, from which decision, we have gathered the conclusions. The answer to the second question, therefore, is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In view of the answer to this question, there is no necessity to answer the first question as it would really be of academic interest.
-
2000 (2) TMI 49 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Accounting, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... hat the contemplation of the rule is that gross receipt of Rs. 60,000 should not exceed in any one of the three years preceding the previous year to claim exemption from maintaining the books of account whereas the contemplation of the rule is that a person is exempted from the operation of sub-rule (1) if his total gross receipt of income does not exceed Rs. 60,000 in any one of the three years preceding the previous years. If the gross receipt does not exceed Rs. 60,000 in any one of the three years immediately preceding the previous year, then he is not required to maintain the books of account. For the reasons stated above, we accept this appeal, set aside the order of the single judge and those of the authorities under the Act and hold that the imposition of penalty was not justified as the appellant s income did not exceed gross receipt of Rs. 60,000 in one of the assessment years (assessment year 1989-90) immediately preceding the assessment year in question. No costs.
-
2000 (2) TMI 48 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Recovery Of Tax, Attachment And Sale Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... pt open. Accordingly, the above issue is answered in the negative. Under the above circumstances, without disturbing the declaration of the gift deed as void under section 281, we direct the petitioner to file his claim/objection under rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Act within two weeks. The Tax Recovery Officer shall take steps to adjudicate upon the claim of the petitioner herein under rule 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act. The Tax Recovery Officer shall consider the requisite documents which are produced by the petitioner herein showing his possession on the relevant date. The Tax Recovery Officer shall examine as to whether the petitioner was in possession in his own right and that the transfer was not made during the pendency of the proceedings. On the merits all the contentions of the petitioner are kept open. Attachment to continue till the adjudication is done as directed above. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
-
2000 (2) TMI 47 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Exemption, Business Assets ... ... ... ... ..... he order of the Tribunal which is passed, on facts, we ourselves examined the returns filed by the assessee right from the assessment year 1985-86 which clearly indicate that even under the Income-tax Act, the assessee has been given the benefit of depreciation and the income received by the assessee has been treated as income from business. Taking into account the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that a pure finding of fact has been recorded by the Tribunal. Hence, no interference is called for. Appeal dismissed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 46 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To High Court, Income, Accrual Of Income, Compulsory Acquisition Of Land ... ... ... ... ..... aw the amount on giving security. The question which arises for determination is whether the additional compensation which was deposited in the court and permitted to be withdrawn was taxable at that stage. Secondly, whether the said amount could be taxed when it was specifically deposited by the Government in appeal to the High Court. In the case of CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. 1986 161 ITR 524(SC), the Supreme Court has held that when the Government has appealed against the award and the additional amount of compensation was deposited in the court, it was not taxable at that stage as the additional compensation would not accrue as income when it was specifically disputed by the Government in appeal. In view of the said judgment of the Supreme Court, there is no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. The judgment of the Supreme Court, on facts, squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 45 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the penalty. On an examination of the facts, the Tribunal found that the assessee had acted under a genuine belief that section 269T had no application to deposits and that it only applied to loans and, therefore, the Tribunal ordered deletion of penalty. We do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the appellate authority and by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 44 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Law Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... duction in respect of secret commission paid by the assessee, it may be mentioned that the appellate authority and the Tribunal have merely proceeded to allow the claim on the ground that, in the past, a similar claim of the assessee had been allowed. However, it may be mentioned that, in the past, when the claim of the assessee was allowed, the Explanation to section 37 which was incorporated by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998, with retrospective effect from April 1, 1962, was not there. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the Legislature clearly intended to disallow such claims with retrospective effect, i.e., from April 1, 1962. Under the circumstances, reliance could not have been placed on the orders passed in favour of the assessee in the past. In the circumstances, we remit the matter back to the Tribunal with a direction to decide this point on the facts, keeping in mind the object of the above amendment. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. No order as to costs.
-
2000 (2) TMI 43 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ces, the receipt which could be taken into account was only of Rs. 14.55 lakhs and that, in the circumstances, section 44AB was not attracted. Accordingly, the Tribunal deleted the penalty. At the outset, we may mention that our order is based only on the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal. The question whether the intention to evade the tax is or is not the ingredient of section 271B is left open. On the facts, we find that the media (Doordarshan) had insisted on the contracts being entered into with the advertising agencies mainly to secure payments. However, the facts show that the assessee acted on behalf of the advertisers for commission. That the assessee had obtained letters of authority from their advertisers to enter into a contract with Doordarshan and A.I.R. That the assessee acted only as agents for commission. On the facts, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the appeal stands dismissed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure, Block Assessment, Firm, Partner ... ... ... ... ..... ee-firm to furnish its return of income for the block period in question. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that since a partnership firm is not a legal entity the assessee firm was liable with regard to the material detected at the residence of its partner. The Tribunal in appeal, however, rightly came to the conclusion that under the Income-tax Act, a registered firm is a taxable unit and if the Assessing Officer wanted to proceed under Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act with regard to the undisclosed income of the partner for the purposes of making block assessment on the assessee-firm, then the Assessing Officer was required to invoke section 158BD which has not been done in the present case and, therefore, the block assessment made on the firm without following the procedure under section 158BD was bad in law. We do not find any error of law in the judgment of the Tribunal. No substantial question of law, in any event, arises. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To Appellate Tribunal, Powers Of Tribunal, Rectification Of Mistakes, Double Taxation Relief
-
2000 (2) TMI 40 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Notice, Return, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ld that change of opinion of the Assessing Officer is not a ground for reassessment. It is further held that it is not open to the authorities to justify the action of reopening on the basis of further reasons supplied in the form of affidavit. As stated hereinabove, the legal position is well-settled. However, on facts, we are satisfied that there is material on record on the basis of which the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment. The above observations on the merits are tentative in nature. It is made clear that this order will not prevent the petitioner from placing reliance on the order of the Commissioner for the assessment year 1995-96 in the reassessment proceedings. Under the above circumstances, we do not find any merit in this petition. Accordingly, the same stands rejected. Mr. Dastur applies for stay of the above order for four weeks. Stay to operate till March 22, 2000. No further extension will be granted. C. C. expedited.
....
|
