|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 446 Records
-
1999 (3) TMI 47
Issues:
Challenge to validity of notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and order of prohibition preventing respondent-income-tax authorities from proceeding further.
Analysis:
The petitioner, a partner in a partnership firm, received income from Zuari Agro Chemicals Ltd. for water drawn from her agricultural land. She claimed this income as capital receipt in her tax returns. The Income-tax Officer accepted this claim, assessing the income as not taxable for several years. However, a notice under section 148 was issued to reopen assessments for those years, leading to a legal challenge.
The petitioner argued that since the income and its nature were disclosed in tax returns and accepted by the Income-tax Officer, reopening the case was beyond the Officer's jurisdiction. The respondent contended that if the Officer failed to apply his mind properly initially, he could reopen the case under section 147 read with section 148.
The court examined the provisions of section 147 before the 1989 amendment, which allowed reopening if the assessee omitted to disclose income or if the Officer had information indicating escaped income. The court noted that the law had a narrow scope for reopening assessments based on specific criteria.
Regarding the requirement to issue a notice under section 148, the petitioner argued that reopening was only permissible if new information emerged. The court rejected the contention that reasons for reopening needed to be communicated to the assessee, emphasizing that reasons were recorded to ensure proper application of mind by the Officer.
Citing Supreme Court judgments, the court discussed the interpretation of "information" for reopening assessments. It highlighted that mere change in opinion without new information was insufficient grounds for reassessment. Precedents emphasized the importance of full disclosure by the assessee and the Officer's duty to consider all relevant facts before reopening assessments.
The court concluded that the Income-tax Act must be strictly construed, and unless clear grounds existed, reopening assessments under section 147 and 148 would not be valid. It dismissed the argument that the notice should specify whether action was under section 147(a) or (b), citing a Supreme Court ruling on the matter.
Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the notice under section 148 and holding that reopening the assessment was not justified based on the facts presented in the case.
-
1999 (3) TMI 46
Issues:
1. Appeal against the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on the stay application.
2. Disagreement between the Vice-President and the Judicial Member on the observations made during the stay application.
3. Procedure to be followed in case of a difference of opinion among the members of the Tribunal.
4. The power of the President of the Tribunal to constitute a Bench of Third Member.
5. Adjudication on the final order in accordance with the majority decision.
6. Proper procedure under section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act.
Analysis:
1. The petition was filed by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax challenging the order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal on the stay application submitted by the first respondent. Two applications for stay of demands were made by the assessee, and the appeals are still pending. The petitioner was aggrieved by the observations made by the Vice-President, which led to a dissenting order by the Judicial Member.
2. The judgment emphasized that observations made during a stay application are tentative and do not impact the final decision on the case. In case of a difference of opinion among members, the point must be decided by the majority, and if equally divided, the case should be referred for further hearing. The final order passed in accordance with the majority decision is the one that can be challenged in proper proceedings.
3. The procedure under section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act was highlighted, stating that the Tribunal must frame the points of disagreement and refer the case to the President for further hearing by other members. The President has the authority to constitute a Bench of Third Member, who will decide the points referred to them. The parties must be given an opportunity to address the points before a final decision is made.
4. It was clarified that any jurisdictional error or failure to follow the prescribed procedure under section 255(4) can be challenged at the appropriate stage. The judgment refrained from interfering in the matter and left it to the Tribunal to follow the correct procedure for resolving the disagreement among the members.
5. The judgment also addressed concerns about the procedure followed by the Vice-President but refrained from commenting on it, as the matter was pending before the Third Member due to the existing difference of opinion. Ultimately, the petition was disposed of with the observations made in the judgment.
-
1999 (3) TMI 45
The High Court of Gauhati ruled that tractors used as agricultural machinery are entitled to additional depreciation and investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court's decision aligned with a previous ruling on the classification of tractors as motor vehicles rather than road transport vehicles. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, affirming the eligibility of tractors for the mentioned benefits.
-
1999 (3) TMI 44
The petitioner sought information about the Income-tax Department's demand against respondent No. 2, which was Rs. 8,27,899. The petitioner's request was disposed of as a fresh proclamation with revised demand was proposed. In another case, the petitioner's plea to quash attachment and sale proclamation of a property was dismissed. The petitioner was informed of the right to appeal against the Income-tax Department's actions under rule 86 of the Income-tax Act. The writ petition was deemed not maintainable and dismissed, with interim orders vacated and no costs awarded.
-
1999 (3) TMI 43
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the rectification order of the AO.
2. Whether the interest paid for the broken period on the purchase of securities is an allowable deduction.
Summary:
Issue 1: Tribunal's Cancellation of Rectification Order
The Tribunal found that the rectification order passed u/s 154 cannot be upheld, relying on various judicial decisions. The Tribunal held that the issue involved is a debatable point and not a mistake apparent from the record. The Tribunal also considered the CBDT Circular No. 599 dated 24th April 1991, which indicated that the interest paid or received for the broken period on purchase/sale of securities by a banking company would constitute revenue payments/receipts and should be taxed as business income. The Tribunal's view was that the net amount of interest paid and received for the broken periods constitutes 'business income' and any loss derived therefrom could be set off against income assessed as 'interest on securities'.
Issue 2: Allowability of Interest Paid for Broken Period
The AO and CIT(A) disallowed the interest paid for the broken period on the grounds that there was no provision for allowing such interest under ss. 18, 19, and 20 of the IT Act. The Tribunal, however, found that the Government securities are the current assets of a banking company and income from such securities would be income from business. The Tribunal concluded that the interest paid for the broken period constitutes an allowable outgo in the hands of the assessee. The Tribunal also considered the CBDT Circular No. 599, which clarified that securities held by banks must be regarded as stock-in-trade, and both interest payments and receipts must be regarded as revenue payments/receipts.
Separate Judgments:
Justice P. Shanmugam dissented, arguing that the interest on securities should be assessed under ss. 18, 19, and 20, and not under s. 37, and that the original assessment allowing interest for the broken period was a mistake apparent from the record. Justice G. Sivarajan, however, agreed with the majority view that the interest paid for the broken period is an allowable deduction and that the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the rectification order.
Conclusion:
The question of law referred to the Court was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Tribunal was justified in cancelling the rectification order issued by the AO.
-
1999 (3) TMI 42
The High Court of Madras ruled that the Commissioner of Wealth-tax was justified in setting aside an assessment and directing a reassessment based on relevant proceedings available at the time of examination. The Tribunal's decision was deemed unjustifiable. The judgment favored the Revenue over the assessee.
-
1999 (3) TMI 41
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Section 17(3) of the Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1958.
2. Allowability of interest paid under Section 17(3) as a deduction under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Analysis:
1. The main issue in this judgment revolves around the interpretation of Section 17(3) of the Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1958. The Tribunal had to determine whether the interest paid under this section was penal in nature for infringement of the law or if it was a legitimate expenditure. Section 17(3) specifies that if the payment for sugarcane purchased is delayed for more than fifteen days, the occupier of a factory must pay interest at a prescribed rate. The Tribunal had to decide if this interest payment was akin to a penalty or a regular business expense.
2. The second issue at hand was the allowability of the interest paid under Section 17(3) as a deduction under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee, a sugar factory owner, had paid interest on the price due for the purchase of sugarcane and claimed it as an expenditure for income tax purposes. However, the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disallowed this claim, viewing the interest payment as a penalty. The Tribunal disagreed with this assessment and allowed the interest as a deductible expenditure under the Income-tax Act.
3. The court analyzed the nature of the interest payable under Section 17(3) and compared it to similar provisions in other statutes. Referring to a previous judgment, the court highlighted that interest payable on arrears of sugarcane purchase tax is not a penalty but a part of the tax liability. Similarly, in the present case, the interest was not a penalty for infringing the law but a consequence of delayed payment for raw material, i.e., sugarcane. The court concluded that the interest paid under Section 17(3) was a legitimate expenditure allowable under Section 37 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Ultimately, the court answered the referred question in the affirmative, ruling against the Commissioner of Income-tax and in favor of the assessee-respondent. The judgment clarified that the interest paid under Section 17(3) of the Sugarcane Act was not penal in nature but a permissible business expense, thereby making it eligible for deduction under the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1999 (3) TMI 40
Issues involved: Determination of charitable status and eligibility for exemption under section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act 1961.
Summary:
The judgment by the High Court of Allahabad pertains to the assessment of a charitable institution, Banaras Brass Merchant and Manufacturers Association Varanasi, which derives income from donations and the sale and manufacturing of products by its members. The institution was initially a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1960 before incorporating as a limited company in 1961. The main objects of the institution include fostering friendly relations, promoting trade, commerce, industry, agriculture, and representing the opinions of the mercantile community. The Tribunal found that the activities of the institution were of general public utility and granted exemption under section 11(1)(a) of the Act. It was also noted that the institution's objects did not involve profit-making activities, and any surplus upon dissolution would be transferred to a similar charitable entity. Consequently, the High Court affirmed the charitable status of the institution and ruled in favor of granting exemption under section 11(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act 1961. The Tribunal's questions were answered affirmatively in favor of the assessee, and the reference was disposed of without costs.
-
1999 (3) TMI 39
The High Court of Madras dismissed the tax case petition. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision to delete certain additions to chargeable interest. The court found that the transaction between the bank and its constituents should be viewed as one integrated transaction, with only the net interest accrued to the bank being taxable. The court did not see the need to refer the matter further.
-
1999 (3) TMI 38
Issues involved:
The judgment involves determining whether the compensation paid by the assessee and other co-owners to hutment dwellers for vacating the land is an allowable expenditure under section 48 read with section 55 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1975-76.
Summary:
The assessee and other co-owners owned a piece of land at Andheri, which was acquired by the Bombay Municipal Corporation after being notified for a public purpose under relevant Acts. The hutment dwellers on the land agreed to vacate it upon receiving Rs. 2,30,000. The assessee sought to deduct this amount as expenditure incurred on the transfer of the property. The Commissioner of Income-tax disallowed the deduction, leading to an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, considering the removal of hutment dwellers as a condition for improving the property's value.
The main issue in this case is whether the compensation paid to vacate the land constitutes a cost of improvement under section 48 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Citing precedents, the court held that the expenditure for vacating the land resulted in an increase in its value, thus qualifying as a cost of improvement. Consequently, the question was answered in favor of the assessee and against the Department.
The judgment disposed of the reference with no order as to costs, and expedited the issuance of a certified copy.
-
1999 (3) TMI 37
Issues:
- Deduction of commission claimed by the assessee
- Justification of allowing the deduction by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal
- Evidence of services rendered for procuring business
- Disallowance of commission paid to Asha Y. Kanakia
- Acceptance of joint agency agreement
- Legal infirmity in the Tribunal's decision
Deduction of Commission Claimed by the Assessee:
The case involved a petition by the Commissioner of Income-tax seeking a direction to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the deduction of commission claimed by the assessee. The assessee, a partnership firm, filed a return showing income and claimed a deduction for commission paid on certain sales. The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction, leading to a series of appeals and ultimately the Tribunal accepting the assessee's claim.
Justification of Allowing the Deduction by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal:
The Tribunal allowed the deduction of commission paid by the assessee to Asha Y. Kanakia, despite the disallowance by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal based its decision on the fact that all three members of the Kanakia family, including Asha Y. Kanakia, had confirmed the receipt of commission. Additionally, the joint agency agreement between the assessee-firm and the Kanakia family members supported the legitimacy of the payments.
Evidence of Services Rendered for Procuring Business:
The Tribunal found that the commission payments were made in connection with procuring orders for the assessee-firm. Statements from the manager of the assessee-firm and the managing partner of a buyer confirmed that the Kanakia family members, including Asha Y. Kanakia, were actively involved in securing orders for the supply of goods. The Tribunal also noted that the recipients declared the commission as income in their tax returns, further supporting the legitimacy of the payments.
Disallowance of Commission Paid to Asha Y. Kanakia:
Initially, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) disallowed the commission paid to Asha Y. Kanakia, citing her lack of awareness of the transactions. However, the Tribunal overturned this decision after considering the joint agency agreement, the confirmation of receipt of commission, and the commercial expediency of the payments made to all three members of the Kanakia family.
Acceptance of Joint Agency Agreement:
The Tribunal highlighted the joint agency agreement reached between the assessee-firm and the Kanakia family members for the sale of power presses. This agreement, signed by all three family members, supported the legitimacy of the commission payments made to them for procuring orders on behalf of the assessee-firm.
Legal Infirmity in the Tribunal's Decision:
The High Court, upon reviewing the facts and findings of the Tribunal, concluded that the decision did not suffer from any legal infirmity. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, indicating that no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order.
In conclusion, the judgment upheld the Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction of commission claimed by the assessee, emphasizing the importance of the joint agency agreement, evidence of services rendered, and the commercial expediency of the payments made to the Kanakia family members.
-
1999 (3) TMI 36
Issues:
Impugned action of the Commissioner of Income-tax in directing withdrawal of applications before Settlement Commission as a condition for availing KVS Scheme benefits.
Analysis:
The High Court addressed the issue of whether the Commissioner of Income-tax was justified in directing the petitioners to withdraw their applications pending before the Settlement Commission as a condition for availing the benefits of the Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 (KVS Scheme). The petitioners, income-tax assessees for the years 1987-88, 1988-89, and 1989-90, had submitted declarations under the KVS Scheme seeking settlement of outstanding arrears. The Commissioner opined that since no order had been passed under section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act, the petitioners could only avail the KVS Scheme benefits upon withdrawing their Settlement Commission applications. However, the Settlement Commission did not allow the withdrawal, leading the petitioners to approach the High Court via writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Court analyzed the provisions of the KVS Scheme, specifically section 95, which outlines cases where the Scheme shall not apply. Section 95(i)(b) states that the Scheme does not apply if an order has been passed by the Settlement Commission under section 245D(4) of the Income-tax Act for any assessment year. Since the petitioners' applications were only admitted under section 245D(1) and had not reached the stage of section 245D(4), the mere pendency of applications before the Settlement Commission should not disentitle the petitioners from availing the KVS Scheme benefits.
After careful consideration of the facts and legal provisions, the Court held that the Commissioner had failed to exercise the statutory jurisdiction vested in him by not processing the petitioners' applications under the KVS Scheme. The Court found that the petitioners were eligible for the KVS Scheme benefits and should not be deprived of their statutory rights due to the Commissioner's incorrect interpretation. Consequently, the Court directed the Commissioner to reconsider the matter, determine the amount payable by the declarants under the KVS Scheme, and issue the necessary certificates for full and final settlement of tax arrears in accordance with the Scheme's provisions. The Court allowed the petitions, making the rule absolute and ordering no costs to be paid.
-
1999 (3) TMI 35
Issues Involved: The judgment involves the question of whether the amounts collected by the assessee as deposit against sales tax should be considered as part of its trading receipt for the purpose of income tax assessment.
Summary:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Madras pertains to a case where the assessee, a dealer in explosive detonators and safety fuses, collected amounts as deposit against sales tax. The Revenue challenged the decision of the Appellate Tribunal, which held that these deposits would not form part of the assessee's income. The key contention was whether the amounts collected should be treated as trading receipts or not.
The Revenue argued that since sales tax is a statutory levy and the amounts collected were meant to meet the liability towards sales tax, they should be considered as trading receipts. On the other hand, the assessee contended that the amounts collected as deposit against sales tax were not part of its trading receipt, citing various legal precedents.
The court examined the nature of the amounts collected and the reasons for their collection. It was emphasized that the true character of the receipt should be determined based on the purpose for which the collection was made. The court held that even though the assessee labeled a portion of the amounts as deposit, the true nature of the collection was a trading receipt.
Relying on legal precedents and the specific circumstances of the case, the court concluded in favor of the Revenue, stating that the amounts collected as deposit against sales tax should indeed be considered as part of the assessee's trading receipt. The court highlighted that the assessee cannot avoid treating such receipts as trading receipts by labeling them as deposits, especially when the liability was statutory and the amounts were collected for that specific purpose.
In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, emphasizing the importance of assessing the true character of receipts based on the underlying reasons for their collection in cases involving statutory liabilities like sales tax.
-
1999 (3) TMI 34
Issues involved: Interpretation of u/s 11 for exemption on donation and set-off of funds deficiency u/r earlier year's surplus.
Interpretation of u/s 11 for exemption on donation: The assessee-trust donated Rs. 31,050 to another charitable trust during the assessment year 1984-85, seeking exemption u/s 11 of the Act. The Income-tax Officer initially rejected the claim, but the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed it. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision. Citing a previous case, the court emphasized that a trust applying money for charitable purposes is eligible for exemption under u/s 11, regardless of how the transferee institution handles the funds. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the assessee against the Revenue.
Set-off of funds deficiency u/r earlier year's surplus: The Tribunal determined that the trust could offset the excess application amount from the previous year against the Rs. 82,516 deficiency in the current assessment year. Referring to similar cases in Rajasthan and Gujarat High Courts, where the questions were resolved in favor of the assessee, the court followed suit. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the assessee against the Revenue based on the precedents set by the Rajasthan and Gujarat High Courts.
-
1999 (3) TMI 33
Issues:
1. Property attachment and sale for tax arrears recovery.
2. Ownership dispute between legal representative and tax authorities.
3. Challenge to the sale proclamation on technical and ownership grounds.
Property Attachment and Sale for Tax Arrears Recovery:
The case involves a petition by the legal representative of a defaulter, Marimuthu Reddiar, against the Department's proceedings to recover tax arrears by selling attached immovable property. The attachment order was initially against Marimuthu Reddiar alone, specifically a dwelling house at Thalatheru, Karaikal. Subsequently, the Department sent notices for sale settlement, leading to objections from the petitioner, Natarajan, claiming ownership of the attached property since 1974. Despite objections and requests not to proceed against his property, the Tax Recovery Officer proceeded with the sale proclamation, citing lack of proof of absolute ownership by the petitioner and his brother, Arunachalam.
Ownership Dispute Between Legal Representative and Tax Authorities:
The petitioner raised objections challenging the sale proclamation, primarily on the grounds that the property did not belong to the defaulter and was not the one attached. However, the court highlighted that since the petitioner did not challenge the previous orders under rule 11, he could not assert ownership without establishing it in a civil court as required. The petitioner's claim of ownership based on a registered partition deed was deemed insufficient due to the lack of proper forum for validation. The court emphasized that the defaulter, Marimuthu Reddiar, should challenge the proceedings, not his sons, as they lacked the legal standing to contest the property's identification and ownership.
Challenge to the Sale Proclamation on Technical and Ownership Grounds:
The petitioner's challenge to the sale proclamation on technical grounds was dismissed as the attachment order and subsequent notices were directed at the defaulter, not the petitioner. The court noted that the petitioner had acknowledged the property covered by the attachment in earlier objections, making it untenable to dispute the property's identification at a later stage. Moreover, the petitioner's objections focused on ownership rather than property identification, and raising new issues at a later stage without legal standing was deemed impermissible. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the lack of merit and denying costs.
In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of following legal procedures, establishing ownership in the appropriate forum, and maintaining legal standing to challenge proceedings effectively.
-
1999 (3) TMI 32
Issues:
1. Reference of questions to the court beyond what was raised before the Tribunal.
2. Legality of redone assessments under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976.
3. Classification of seized documents as income.
4. Rejection of thandal basis of transactions by the Tribunal.
5. Validity of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme in ending liabilities.
6. Prosecution of petitions for reference under the Income-tax Act.
Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of seeking reference of questions beyond those raised before the Tribunal. The court noted that the assessee sought reference of six questions, three of which were not proposed before the Tribunal. It was held that the assessee cannot seek reference of questions that go beyond what was raised before the Tribunal, thereby limiting the scope of reference.
2. Regarding the legality of redone assessments under the Voluntary Disclosure of Income and Wealth Act, 1976, the Tribunal's order was discussed. The assessee's business premises were searched, pronotes were seized, and revised returns were filed post the search. The Commissioner's order conditional upon proof of thandal business was highlighted. The Tribunal affirmed the appellate authority's decision that only a part of the income was related to thandal business, leading to a reduction in the assessed quantum.
3. The issue of seized documents being classified as income was examined. The Income-tax Officer rejected the evidence provided by the assessee regarding thandal business. The Tribunal accepted that only a part of the income was from thandal business, excluding it from the assessment. The pronotes were considered to represent unaccounted income, leading to the rejection of the assessee's claim that the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme ended all liabilities.
4. The rejection of the thandal basis of transactions by the Tribunal was discussed. The Income-tax Officer did not find the evidence provided by the assessee's witnesses credible. The appellate authority reduced the assessed quantum, considering some income derived from thandal business. However, the Tribunal upheld the appellate authority's decision, emphasizing that only a part of the income could be linked to thandal business.
5. The judgment also addressed the validity of the Voluntary Disclosure Scheme in ending liabilities. The court found the assessee's claim that the scheme ended all liabilities untenable. It was concluded that the assessee failed to prove that the entire assessed income was derived from thandal business, and the pronotes represented unaccounted income.
6. Lastly, the judgment expressed displeasure at the delayed prosecution of the petitions for reference under the Income-tax Act. The court highlighted the significant delay in complying with procedural requirements, leading to the petitions being numbered after almost 20 years. The petitions were deemed to have abated and were found to be without merit, emphasizing the importance of timely and diligent prosecution of legal matters.
-
1999 (3) TMI 31
The High Court of Kerala directed the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to refer questions of law regarding revaluation of stock-in-trade and cessation of business to the court. The case involved conversion of a proprietary business into a partnership, leading to disputes over taxation issues. The court found that the questions raised by the assessee were valid and ordered the Tribunal to refer them for the court's opinion.
-
1999 (3) TMI 30
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the retention of seized assets by the Income-tax authorities.
2. Applicability of Section 132(5) and Section 132B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Liability of the petitioner as a legal representative under Section 159 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Claim for compensation by the petitioner for the delay in returning the seized assets.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of the Retention of Seized Assets by the Income-tax Authorities:
The petitioner challenged the retention of her assets, specifically jewellery and National Savings Certificates (NSCs), seized during a search and seizure operation conducted by the Income-tax authorities. The petitioner contended that the retention of these assets was illegal as her tax liabilities had been settled. The court found that the assets should have been returned to the petitioner once her dues were cleared, as mandated by sub-section (3) of Section 132B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Applicability of Section 132(5) and Section 132B of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The court examined the provisions of Section 132(5) and Section 132B, which govern the retention and application of seized assets. According to these sections, the Income-tax Officer must return the assets not required for discharging liabilities within a specified period. The court noted that the petitioner's tax liabilities had been paid off, and therefore, the assets should have been returned. The Commissioner's order to retain the assets was found to be unwarranted under these provisions.
3. Liability of the Petitioner as a Legal Representative under Section 159 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The respondents argued that the petitioner was liable for the tax dues of her deceased husband under Section 159. The court clarified that Section 159 pertains to the recovery of dues from the estate of the deceased and that such recovery should be pursued through proper recovery proceedings. The court emphasized that the Commissioner could not convert himself into a Recovery Officer under the guise of Section 132(5) and Section 132B to retain the assets for the deceased's liabilities. The court further explained that the liability of a legal representative is limited to the extent of the assets of the deceased that come into their possession, as detailed in sub-section (4) of Section 159.
4. Claim for Compensation by the Petitioner for the Delay in Returning the Seized Assets:
The petitioner sought compensation for the loss caused by the illegal retention of her assets. The court acknowledged that the petitioner had suffered a loss due to the non-return of the NSCs, which had matured and would have increased in value if reinvested. However, the court declined to award damages under Article 226 of the Constitution, citing the discharge of sovereign functions by the State and the petitioner's delayed approach to the court.
Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned order dated September 29, 1997, passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, and directed the respondents to return the jewellery and NSCs to the petitioner within 15 days. The court also ordered the respondents to pay the petitioner costs amounting to Rs. 2,500.
-
1999 (3) TMI 29
Issues:
1. Interpretation of preoperational expenses in the construction of factory building.
2. Eligibility of civil works expenses on foundation and water storage tank for investment allowance.
Issue 1: Interpretation of Preoperational Expenses
The case involved a dispute regarding the treatment of preoperational expenses in the construction of a factory building for an assessee engaged in manufacturing craft paper. The Valuation Officer's report valued the factory construction cost higher than the amount shown by the assessee, leading to an addition of the difference to the assessee's income as unexplained investment. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) later held that the nature of projects financed by public limited companies justified the inclusion of proportionate preoperational expenses. The Tribunal also found no undisclosed investment attracting section 69 of the Income-tax Act. The Commissioner sought a reference on the legality of considering preoperational expenses, but the High Court noted that this issue was not raised before the Tribunal and did not arise from its order. Therefore, the first question proposed by the Commissioner did not hold.
Issue 2: Eligibility of Civil Works Expenses for Investment Allowance
The second issue revolved around whether civil works expenses on foundation and water storage tank amounting to Rs. 6,16,963 were eligible for investment allowance. The Tribunal considered these expenses as part of plant and machinery, crucial for the functioning of the plant as a whole. Various High Court decisions were cited to support the view that specialized structures like reinforced concrete foundations and water storage tanks could be categorized as plant. The High Court noted that the determination of whether these expenses constituted plant involved a mixed question of fact and law. As there was no direct decision from the Supreme Court or the High Court on this specific point, the High Court directed the Tribunal to refer the question of law on the eligibility of civil works expenses for investment allowance back to the court for consideration.
In conclusion, the High Court addressed the issues raised by the Commissioner of Income-tax regarding preoperational expenses and civil works expenses for investment allowance. While the first issue was dismissed due to lack of consideration by the Tribunal, the second issue was deemed to require further examination, leading to a direction for reference back to the court for a legal opinion.
-
1999 (3) TMI 28
The High Court of Madras ruled that the assessee, a soft drink manufacturer, could not claim the value of bottles as a business loss but should have treated them as a capital asset for depreciation. The Tribunal's decision allowing the loss as a business loss was incorrect. The assessee can now claim depreciation under section 32 of the Income-tax Act for the bottles.
....
|
9911796707
