|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 421 to 440 of 459 Records
-
2000 (2) TMI 39 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... at the Tribunal had directed the Assessing Officer to pass a fresh order of assessment as contemplated by section 153(2A). On the facts, section 153(3) clearly stood attracted. Section 153(3), inter alia, lays down that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 153 shall not apply to assessments, reassessments and recomputations made on the assessee in order to give effect to any direction contained in an order under section 254 of the Act. This provision is, however, subject to the provisions of section 153(2A). In other words, if a matter falls under section 153(2A) then, the fresh order of assessment shall be passed within the prescribed period of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order is passed by the Tribunal under section 254. However, on the facts, section 153(2A) is not attracted. The case falls under section 153(3). Hence, the revisional authority was right in passing the impugned order. The appeal stands accordingly disposed of.
-
2000 (2) TMI 38 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Firm, Dissolution ... ... ... ... ..... sent matter, as stated above the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that the partnership firm was a family concern that the flat in question was used as office prior to the dissolution that it continued to be office after dissolution that the flat was not to be sold and that the valuation done by the Assessing Officer was arbitrary. We do not wish to interfere with the finding of fact. As stated above, we do not agree with the broad propositions referred to in the judgment of the Tribunal. We have given detail reasons so that the law stands clarified. We may also mention that if the judgment of the Tribunal is read as a whole, it would be open to the partners to enter into an agreement whereby assets could be undervalued on the ground of contra agreement referred to above. Ultimately, the fair value concept will depend on the facts of each case as stated above. Subject to above, the appeal stands dismissed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 37 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To High Court, Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... losed income filed before the Assessing Officer under Chapter XIV-B also indicated that income had been disclosed by the firm to the Department, that tax deducted at source has been paid, that advance tax has also been paid and, in the circumstances, the Tribunal, on facts, came to the conclusion that the findings of the Assessing Officer regarding undisclosed income were not to be based on any material found in the search operations and that lie had taken the total income for the earlier assessment years as undisclosed income without any material being found during the search and, in the circumstances, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no reason for treating the said total income as undisclosed income for the purposes of Chapter XIV-B. Under the above circumstances, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. We do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of facts recorded by the Tribunal. Since, no substantial question of law arises, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 36 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... of the fact that the company is an investment company and, as found by the Tribunal, the object was not to evade tax, but to expand its investment business. In the case of CIT v. Gangadhar Banerjee and Co. (Pvt.)Ltd. 1965 57 ITR 176, the Supreme Court has observed that the Income-tax Officer acting under section 104 is not assessing income to tax. He only does what the directors should have done. He puts himself in the place of the directors and that the yardstick to be applied should be that of a prudent businessman. Applying the ratio of the said judgment to the facts of this case, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the investment in units made by the assessee was in furtherance of a business activity of an assessee-company and no fault can be found against the assessee for expanding its business, rather than declaring dividends. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. Appeal stands dismissed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 35 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution, Income-Tax Proceedings, Wilful Attempt To Evade Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ndian Penal Code and section 193 of the Indian Penal Code, read with section 136 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be interfered with. In fine, the conviction and sentence imposed on the revision petitioner under section 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and section 139 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 136 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are confirmed and the criminal revision petition filed by the revision petitioner against the said conviction and sentence is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed against the revision petitioner for the offences under section 276C(1) and section 277 (two counts) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are set aside and the accused shall stand acquitted of the abovesaid offences under the Income-tax Act, 1961. The revision petition is allowed to that extent in part. The trial court is hereby directed to take appropriate steps to apprehend the revision petitioner to undergo the unspent portion of the period of sentence.
-
2000 (2) TMI 34 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital or Revenue Expenditure, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... int was decided by the appellate authority in favour of the assessee for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1986-87. Under the circumstances, there is no merit on this point in the present appeal. The second point raised in this appeal is whether gratuity paid in excess of the limits prescribed by the Gratuity Act constituted allowable deduction. In the case of CIT v. Hindustan Motors Ltd. 1989 175 ITR 411 (Cal), it was held that the additional gratuity paid to monthly wage earners could not be disallowed as it constituted an expenditure under the rules of the company. Applying the said judgment to the facts of the present case, the Tribunal has found that in the present matter, additional gratuity was paid to monthly wage earners (employees) and that even for the past assessment years, the Department has allowed deduction in respect of additional gratuity paid to such employees. Under the above circumstances, the appeal stands dismissed as no substantial question of law arises.
-
2000 (2) TMI 33 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Liquor Business, Deduction only on Actual Payment ... ... ... ... ..... t notifications. He accordingly deleted the addition. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had considered the notification issued by the State Government wherein it was stated that kist is not excise duty. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had deleted the disallowance after considering the notification and found that the action of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified and accordingly upheld his order and rejected the plea of the Department. The controversy is now covered by the decision of this court in ITRC No. 5 of 1996-CIT v. D. Dasappa 2000 246 ITR 750, disposed of on January 5. 2000. Following the same, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that kist is neither duty nor tax and, therefore, will not come within the purview of the provisions of section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2000 (2) TMI 32 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution, False Verification ... ... ... ... ..... ever, the magistrate rejected this application on the ground that the proceedings before the appellate authority of the income-tax and the court were two independent proceedings and the criminal court can independently decide the allegations made by the applicant before it without reference to the findings given by the Departmental authorities. Even after hearing counsel for the Revenue I am unable to agree with the observations made by the magistrate in view of the recent position of law in this regard as laid down by the Supreme Court and particularly when the offence is said to have been committed because of a particular valuation and when the Departmental authorities have themselves given findings that the method of valuation adopted by the petitioner is not at all wrong or illegal, nothing remains in the complaint. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. The complaint under the aforesaid sections of the Income-tax Act against the petitioner is quashed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 31 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To High Court, Substantial Question of Law, Block Assessment, Stocks Found During Search
-
2000 (2) TMI 30 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Dearness Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... al to show that the expenditure on purchase of articles for presentation did not advertise the assessee s product whereas in the present matter, on facts, the Tribunal has found ample material to show that the assessee incurred expenditure but it did not incur such expenditure as and by way of advertising its product. The burden of proof, therefore, stands discharged by the assessee. In the circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. Lastly, it has been urged on behalf of the Department that the assessee was not entitled to deduction of additional contribution to the welfare fund amounting to Rs. 55,067 on the ground that it was not an approved welfare fund. The Tribunal has found that the said contribution was made pursuant to the settlement under the Industrial Disputes Act and accordingly, granted the said deduction. Hence, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Appeal stands accordingly dismissed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 29 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Deduction Only on Actual Payment, Kist, Liquor Business ... ... ... ... ..... at the end of the relevant accounting year payable by the assessee to the Government. In appeal it was held that kist cannot be considered as tax or duty and, hence, the outstanding kist amount cannot be disallowed under section 43B. Aggrieved by the order of the Commissioner, the Department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in its present order, has upheld the decision of the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 1234/Bang of 1988, dated June 9, 1994, in the case of D. Dasappa, Bangalore. The question raised in the present matter is answered by this court in CIT v. D. Dasappa 2000 246 ITR 750--I.T.R.C. No. 5 of 1996, and other connected matters decided on January 5, 2000. Accordingly, it is held that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the kist amount payable to the Government by the assessee could not be brought within the purview of section 43B of the Income-tax Act. Reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2000 (2) TMI 28 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Deduction Only on Actual Payment, Kist, Liquor Business ... ... ... ... ..... s cannot be considered as tax or duty and hence the provisions of section 43B would not be attracted. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the contention of the assessee and allowed the appeal. Against this, the Department filed an appeal. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) and directed the deletion of disallowance under section 43B. The Tribunal based its decision on the decision in the case of Dasappa and Co. in I. T. A. No. 1234/Bang of 1988, dated June 9, 1994. The controversy is now covered by the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. D. Dasappa 2000 246 ITR 750-I.T.R.C. No. 5 of 1996, decided on January 5, 2000. Following the said decision, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that kist amount payable to the Government by the assessee could not be brought within the purview of the provisions of section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
2000 (2) TMI 27 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Income Tax Survey, Scope of Section 133A ... ... ... ... ..... etaining the photo-copies of all the required documents by the Revenue Department and getting the same authenticated by the petitioner and in that circumstance, there will be no apprehension of tampering with the books of account and documents by the petitioner-assessee. Thus, the apprehension entertained by the statutory authority is unfounded and not worth considering. In view of the above, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated December 22, 1999 (annexure 2), is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to return the books of account and other documents impounded by them, vide order dated December 22, 1999 (annexure 2). However, the respondents are at liberty to retain the photocopies of the relevant documents and get them authenticated by the petitioner and use the same in future to contradict any entry made by the petitioner in future in case the petitioner tampers with the said books of account or the documents. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2000 (2) TMI 26 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Deduction, Allowable Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... nclusion that after protracted negotiations in respect of the demands on the fresh charter of demands, conciliation proceedings were held and under the said proceedings it was decided that a lump sum amount would be paid at a particular rate to the workers for the period January 1, 1985, up to December 31, 1986. The Tribunal, therefore, accepted the assessee s contention that the negotiations had reached a stage where it was possible to anticipate the liability to pay the workers higher wages and, therefore, the assessee had rightly debited the profit and loss account for the year ending June 30, 1986, with the provisions in order to discharge the increased liability. Accordingly, the Tribunal held, on the facts, that the provision was made on a reasonable basis for anticipated expenditure and, therefore, it was an allowable deduction. We do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal. For the above reasons, the appeal stands dismissed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 25 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Firm, Business Expenditure, Disallowance of Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... t the net profit or loss after making 18 per cent. interest on the capital contribution of the partners, for each year shall be shared . . . . Since the petitioners have no case that interest relates to the capital contribution the said amount cannot be allowed as a deduction. In view of the provisions of sub-clause (iv) of clause (b) of section 40 of the Act. The fact that the assessee-firm has paid interest on current account and recorded it in the books of account and further that the partners have included the said amount in their individual returns and paid tax will not alter the situation. The authorities can act only in accordance with the provisions of section 40(b) of the Act. In this case, the first respondent had rejected the claim for deduction of interest paid on current account only because there was no provision in the partnership deed enabling such payment. In the circumstances, there is no merit in these original petitions and they are accordingly dismissed.
-
2000 (2) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Central Board Of Direct Taxes ... ... ... ... ..... for five years. In the case of CIT v. Sirpur Paper Mills 1999 237 ITR 41 (SC), it has been held by the Supreme Court that the notification issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes cannot curtail the scope of deduction granted by the Income-tax Act, 1961. In view of the said judgment of the Supreme Court, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. Reference disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (2) TMI 23 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Writ, Revision, Return, Defective Return ... ... ... ... ..... our anxious consideration and thoughts to the factual scenario emerging from the record of the present case, coupled with the relevant proposition of law and, in particular, the material provisions of section 139(9)(bb) and the exercise of discretionary power by the respondent under section 264(1) of the Income-tax Act, we are of the clear opinion that the contentions propounded by the assessee-company before the Assessing Officer as well as the revisional authority are, rightly, not upheld. It cannot be said, by any stretch of imagination, that the exercise of discretionary power by the authorities below is in any way influenced or affected by extraneous considerations or non-consideration of vital facts. Therefore, we find that this petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India is without any substance and deserves only fate of rejection. Accordingly, it is rejected. Rule discharged. In the facts and circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
2000 (2) TMI 22 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... depreciation has been made reads as under In respect of depreciation of buildings, machinery, plant or furniture owned wholly or partly by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal was in error in rejecting the application under section 256(1) by holding that the question does not involve interpretation of section 32 of the Act. The application under section 256(2) of the Act is, therefore, allowed and we direct the Tribunal to state the case and refer the following question of law arising out of its order dated January 12, 1997, in I.T.A. No. 78/JP of 1993 Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in allowing the claim of the assessee-firm for deduction on account of depredation in respect of vehicles which were registered in the name of one or more partners of the firm and used by the firm for its business? There shall be no order as to costs of this application.
-
2000 (2) TMI 21 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... vision and effect of omission of section 209A of the Act with effect from April 1, 1988, on the obligation of the assessee to furnish estimate of his income under section 209A during the financial year relevant to the assessment year 1988-89, which requires consideration. The Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application under section 256(1) of the Act on the ground that the answer is self-evident. In this view of the matter, we allow this reference application and direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to refer the following question for determination to this court Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that no interest can be charged under section 217(1) or section 217(1A) when the assessee has filed the estimate of his income under section 209A(1) and paid tax accordingly, and that he was not required to file estimate of his income under section 209A(4) of the Income-tax Act, thereafter?
-
2000 (2) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offence And Prosecution, Compounding Of Offences - The respondent-accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000 under section 276CC(i) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. - Section 279(2) of the Act confers the discretion on the Commissioner to compound any offence. It is admitted that the accused has also filed an application for compounding the case. I am satisfied that the order of the Chief Commissioner in agreeing to compound the case, subject to leave of the court that would be granted by the court, is in accordance with law. As the offence is compounded, the conviction and the sentence imposed on the accused are liable to be set aside.
....
|
