|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 432 Records
-
1996 (3) TMI 33 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Firm Registration, Question Of Fact, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ct and now the proceedings are being taken up under this new notice issued on September 10, 1993, we are satisfied that the new notice which has been given has nexus and reasons are given in this notice therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with this notice. The original notesheets have been produced before us the reasons and it has been pointed out in the reply filed by the respondents that the partners of the firm have introduced capital to the tune of Rs. 70 lakhs and there were also credits to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs during the period relevant to the assessment year 1984 85. Therefore, it is a matter which is required to be examined and we are of the opinion that the notice issued by the respondents is not without jurisdiction. Hence, this petition has no merit and the same is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to raise any legal objection before the Assessing Officer and any observation made in the order, will not come in the way of the petitioner.
-
1996 (3) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agreement For Avoidance, Income Tax Act, Permanent Establishment, Tax Avoidance ... ... ... ... ..... smuch as the deduction can be allowed as and when payment was made to an approved gratuity fund in later years or on actual payment under section 36(1)(v) of the Act, the assessee is entitled to deduction of the premium paid to cover the liability of the assessee towards gratuity to the extent of Rs. 66,482. For the balance of the amount, there is no evidence to show that provision was made or actually paid. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in allowing deduction to the extent of Rs. 66,482. In so far as question No. 2 is concerned, that was not pressed by learned counsel for the assessee inasmuch as T. C. No. 172 of 1977 relating to the assessment year 1969-70 was withdrawn on June 16, 1980. In view of the fact that the development rebate was granted earlier, the assessee is not entitled to claim development rebate in the assessment year 1974-75. In view of the foregoing reasons, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1996 (3) TMI 31 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Net Wealth, Religious Purpose ... ... ... ... ..... therefore, valid construing the same as renunciation or relinquishment by Rami Reddy of his interest in the coparcenary and, accordingly, the consent of other coparceners was immaterial. It appears from the statement of fact that the alternative stand taken by the assessee was that the said gifts could be treated as allotted to the respective members of the Hindu undivided family by partial partition. We find that even if treating the same to be relinquishment or renunciation such renunciation would enure for the benefit of all other coparceners and not for the benefit of individuals to whom the gift was made. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was justified in holding that the gift of almost the entire assets of the Hindu undivided family by the karta in favour of his five sons was void in the facts and the circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the question referred is answered against the applicant (assessee) and in favour of the Revenue.
-
1996 (3) TMI 30 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Individual Income ... ... ... ... ..... ed a serious error in holding to the contra and allowing the rectification applications. Accordingly, we quash and set aside the order dated October 10, 1991, passed by the Agrl. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Kozhikode, in rectification Applications Nos. 138 to 141 of 1991 and restore the appellate order dated July 25, 1990, in AITA Nos. 190 of 1984 and 334 to 336 of 1985. These tax revision cases are accordingly allowed. Learned counsel for the assessee during the course of hearing of the Tax Revision Cases Nos. 241, 251, 252 and 255 of 1992, by way of abundant caution, has filed T. R. C. Nos. 31 to 34 of 1996 accompanied by applications for condonation of delay challenging the appellate order of the Tribunal rendered in AITA Nos. 190 of 1984 and 334 to 336 of 1985. In view of the decision which we have already rendered in T. R. C. Nos. 241, 251, 252 and 255 of 1992, these tax revision cases have to be dismissed, after condoning the delay in filing the petitions. We do so.
-
1996 (3) TMI 29 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income Tax, Minor Child, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... n up before the first appellate authority concentrated only with reference to the contention that the minors and the wife had their own source of income for all these purchases. We have also examined the assessment order and find total absence of the above contentions. As far as the present references are concerned, the contention that the amounts are repaid to the assessee by instalments remains only in the nature of a whisper through the submissions, there being no material in regard thereto. If that is the position, there is no occasion for a doubt that the transaction is hit by the statutory provisions of section 9(2)(a)(iv) of the Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1950. Accordingly, the question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment shall be forwarded to the Agricultural Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Addl. Bench, Ernakulam, under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar, as required by law.
-
1996 (3) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Initial Depreciation, Manufacture Or Production, New Industrial Undertaking, Set Off, Special Deduction, Unabsorbed Development Rebate
-
1996 (3) TMI 27 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A Partner, Adventure In The Nature Of Trade, Carrying On Business, Partner In Firm ... ... ... ... ..... carrying on the business in grains. It is further clear that the grain received by him on partition was kept by the assessee with Bhanwar Singh, a firm which carried on business in grain and grain-lending and since the assessee waited for a sufficiently long period in relation to the perishable commodities with a view to make profit, it was only an adventure in the nature of trade. The assessing authority has, thus, rightly taxed the income and the appellate authorities have not committed any error in confirming the decision of the Income-tax Officer. Accordingly, we hold that in the facts and circumstances of the case and the material on record, there was sufficient justification in law to hold that sale worth of Rs. 60,857 relating to the food grain received in partition by the assessee constituted an adventure in the nature of trade and the profit of Rs. 38,280 was properly taxed. In the result, the reference is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
1996 (3) TMI 26 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
High Court, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... that the order is passed on the decision rendered by this court as noted above, but, as the special leave petition has been filed and is pending against the decision, the linchpin of the order, the question of law as proposed arose in the matter. He, therefore, prayed for a direction on the ground of pendency of the special leave petition. The point raised stands concluded by the decision rendered by this court. In our opinion, mere pendency of a special leave petition does not give rise to a referable question of law. This position is settled by the decision in CWT v. Smt. Usha Devi 1990 183 ITR 75 (MP) and in M. C. C. No. 48 of 1985 (Ganga Cut Piece Centre v. CIT 1997 225 ITR 839 (MP)), decided on December 19, 1995. Nothing substantial is urged to take a different view in the matter. In the result, this application is held to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs. Counsel fee for the applicant is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified.
-
1996 (3) TMI 25 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Association Of Persons, Body Of Individuals ... ... ... ... ..... n must be one the object of which is to produce income, profits or gains. Trustees derive their authority to carry on business, not from the beneficiaries, but from the settlor under the terms of the deed of trust. They do not require the consent of the beneficiaries for exercising their authority under the deed of trust. The authority is conferred on them by the settlor. The beneficiaries are mere recipients of the income earned by the trust. They have not come together for a common purpose. They cannot, therefore, be considered as an association of persons or a body of individuals. The situation in the present case is no different. In the present case, the income accrued to the trust without the beneficiaries having any right to receive it and it was clearly a case where the assessment of the trust on receipt of the said income would be made under section 161(1) of the Income-tax Act. Accordingly, the reference is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue.
-
1996 (3) TMI 24 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Commercial Profit, Computation Of Capital, New Industrial Undertaking, Profits And Gains, Special Deduction, Work In Progress
-
1996 (3) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Property To Defraud Revenue, Recovery Proceedings, Transfer Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... has taken the view that The petitioner being aware of the recovery proceedings and having participated in them cannot object to the proceedings on the ground that no notice as required under rule 2 of Part I of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961, had been given. Here also, even though no specific notice under rule 2 referred to above has been served on the defaulter prior to exhibit A-1, the relevant document, exhibit B-1, shows that the plaintiffs vendor was served with necessary notices and he was aware of the tax arrears and the steps taken by the Income-tax Department in respect of the attachment over his properties. In the light of the factual position, as well as the provisions of the Income-tax Act and Rules referred to above, I am unable to accept any of the contentions of learned counsel for the appellants. Consequently, the judgment and decree of the courts below are confirmed accordingly, the second appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1996 (3) TMI 22 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, High Court ... ... ... ... ..... ition in September, 1976, and, therefore, there was nothing suspicious about the transactions between Seema Traders and the assessee. We find that the said finding is based on proper appreciation. It is clear that in the absence of any cogent material to indicate to the contrary, there was no reason to assume that the assessee had engaged in any suspicious dealings with the Cuttack party and the Tribunal was, therefore, quite justified in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduct Rs. 45,370 as bad debt. The Supreme Court in Bank of Bihar Ltd. v. CIT 1962 45 ITR 427, has observed that the question, whether a debt is bad, is one of fact and if there is some evidence to justify the conclusion of the Tribunal it is not open to the High Court in a reference under the Act to re-appreciate the evidence. The said observations of their Lordships fully apply to the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we answer the reference against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
1996 (3) TMI 21 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Failure To Disclose ... ... ... ... ..... e circumstances, we are of the view that penalty had correctly been imposed for non-disclosure of interest income. The return of income had been filed on August 28, 1968, and in view of this the amended law was applicable to the imposition of penalty and the Income-tax Officer had the jurisdiction to pass order imposing penalty in this case. Considering all the aspects of the matter, we uphold the order of penalty and dismiss the assessee s appeal. In this view of the matter, we are unable to subscribe to the view now canvassed before us that the liability regarding the amount of interest was itself in dispute. We do not find the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Limited 1986 161 ITR 524, has any application in the present case. We will, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. Since the matter is of the year 1967-68, there shall be no order as to costs. S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA J.---I agree.
-
1996 (3) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Receipt, Tea Estate ... ... ... ... ..... the dead and flowered bamboos were removed once for all, the sale proceeds of the same would be capital in nature. In A. K T. K M. Vishnudatta Antharjanam v. Commr. of Agrl. I.T 1970 78 ITR 58 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the sale of the trees affected the capital structure, because by removing the roots the source from which fresh growth of trees could take place was removed, and the sale could not, therefore, give rise to a revenue receipt. The receipt from the sale of the teak trees was capital in nature. Since, according to the facts arising in the present case, the sale proceeds consisting of the sale of dead and flowered bamboos, which were removed once for all, it cannot be considered as revenue in nature. As per the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra, the sale proceeds of the dead and flowered bamboos would only be in the nature of capital receipt. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (3) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... limitation, it did so expressly. Sec. 72 deals with carry forward and set off of business loss. The proviso to cl. (i) of sub-s. (1) of s. 72 expressly provides that such a course is permissible only where the business or profession for which the loss was originally computed continued to be carried on by him in the previous year relevant for that assessment year . In the absence of any words to that effect, it must be held that for availing of the benefit of s. 32(2), it is not necessary that the business carried on in the following year is the same business as was carried on in the previous year. 5. In view of the above decision of the Supreme Court, we hold that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal in allowing the set off of the carried forward unabsorbed depreciation of the defunct firm against the profits of the assessees from other business. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. No. costs.
-
1996 (3) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Entertainment Expenditure, Effect Of Amendment ... ... ... ... ..... its employees. According to learned counsel, when the soft drinks were served to the customers at branches the employees of the company were also entertained and, therefore, a portion of the expenditure is relatable to the entertainment expenditure, incurred to its employees, which is not lavish in nature. But, according to the facts arising in this case, the assessee claimed a sum of Rs. 23,350 being the expenditure incurred towards the supply of soft drinks to the customers. Therefore, in the absence of facts on record, it is not possible to issue the direction as requested by learned counsel for the assessee. Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal was not correct in coming to the conclusion that the expenditure incurred towards the supply of soft drinks to the customers cannot be treated as entertainment expenditure and disallowed under section 37(2A) of the Act. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (3) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Foreign Exchange ... ... ... ... ..... al and now in view of the abovesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the assessee claimed that it should be treated as revenue expenditure. The same item of expenditure cannot be treated for one purpose as capital in nature and for another purpose as revenue in nature. Inasmuch as the assessee itself treated the interest payment as capital in nature it is not open to the assessee to ask for deduction as revenue expenditure. Accordingly, the Tribunal was correct in holding that in view of the decisions of this court in CIT v. South India Viscose Ltd. 1979 120 ITR 451 and the decision of this court in T. C. Nos. 422 and 423 of 1982 and 36 of 1983 (CIT v. Elgi Rubber Products Ltd. 1996 219 ITR 109) (judgment dated February 17, 1995), the difference in exchange value and the interest payable thereon cannot be deducted in computing the total income for the assessment year 1978-79. In that view of the matter, we answer the question in the negative and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1996 (3) TMI 16 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Directors ... ... ... ... ..... ii) includes both expenditure as well as allowance in respect of any assets of the company used by any person referred to in sub-clause (i) either wholly or partly for his own purposes or his benefit. Therefore, the abovesaid decision of the Supreme Court would also be applicable while claiming deduction in respect of expenditure. Therefore, if the asset of the company is used for personal purposes of the directors, the expenditure has got to be allowed in accordance with section 40(c) of the Act. Therefore, in the case of allowance of expenditure as well as allowance for depreciation, if the asset of the company is used for personal purposes of the directors, then the expenditure claimed or the depreciation claimed ought to have been allowed by taking into consideration the provisions contained in section 40(c) of the Act. In that view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the Department. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1996 (3) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution, False Verification, Mens Rea ... ... ... ... ..... offence of forgery. The suspicion that the accused could have forged and could have presented the forms with the knowledge and could have dishonestly induced the Income-tax Officer, to get the assessment order passed, has no substance, because in a criminal case, the onus is not on the accused to prove his innocence, but it is always with the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused. Therefore, the main ingredients, viz., the intention or mens rea or a wilful act with the knowledge that the contents of the documents are false is lacking in these cases. Unless the prosecution establishes that it is the accused, who signed the names of other partners or the names have been written at the instance of the accused, the accused could not be said to be the culprit. The reasonings given by the trial court are well merited. I see no reason to interfere with the same. These four appeals, which have no merits are liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed.
-
1996 (3) TMI 14 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Gratuity, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... erved with reference to the character of the repayment by the assessee as to whether it is by way of adjustment against the gratuity paid by the assessee to his employees or otherwise. Referring to the provisions of rule 106 it is observed that what was initially obtained as a loan cannot be understood to be converted to be belonging to any other category and as such if what is sanctioned as loan any part of the repayment in regard thereto could never be understood as treated to be the income of the employer. A copy of the said judgment is placed before us by learned senior counsel. Going through the judgment, in view of its natural coverage the question can be answered only in the similar way. Accordingly, it is answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. 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.
....
|
