Income From Undisclosed Sources, Search And Seizure
... ... ... ... ..... been denied. In fact this is a quantity stock register maintained by the assessee in the course of its business. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Income-tax Officer has correctly concluded that there was undervaluation of closing stock of timber to the extent of Rs. 4,98,110. The question that should have been adjudicated by the Tribunal is whether there was any variation in the physical stock. The forest authorities certified about the physical existence of the particular quantity of materials. On verification of the records produced by the assessee, the Revenue authorities found that there were discrepancies. This aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal in its proper perspective. On the contrary, it has taken into consideration, irrelevant materials, thereby giving rise to a question of law. In the background of what we have stated above, we answer the question, referred to for opinion in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
Writ, Attachment And Sale Of Property, Recovery Of Tax
... ... ... ... ..... e Finance Act, 1992 with effect from June 1, 1992, and the relevant portion reads as under 68B. (1) No sale of immovable property shall be made under this Part after the expiry of three years from the end of the financial year in which the order giving rise to a demand of any tax, interest, fine, penalty or any other sum, for the recovery of which the immovable property has been attached, has become conclusive under the provisions of section 245-1 or, as the case may be, final in terms of the provisions of Chapter XX. This rule, therefore, which did not exist at the time of relevant sale, could not affect the sale that was held in the year 1980. No other point was urged before us and in view of the above discussions, this writ petition is dismissed with costs to the respondents which we assess at Rs. 2,500 (two thousand five hundred) for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and Rs. 2,500 (two thousand five hundred) for respondent No. 3. The interim order dated June 22, 1999, is vacated.
... ... ... ... ..... case of Apoorva Shantialal Shah v. CIT 1983 141 ITR 558, the Supreme Court held that the karta of a Hindu undivided family was competent to effect a partial partition even though there was no other adult members in the family. In the case of Sushil Kumar and Sons v. ITO 1998 234 ITR 98 (All), this court held that a partial partition of the amount invested in a firm could be the subject of partial partition. Then in the case of Ram Nath v. CIT 1996 217 ITR 661 (All), it was held that the mother and son can take jointly amongst themselves a share of the family property. The question how the property belonging to the minor would be managed was irrelevant and in any case there is no legal impediment in a mother acting as a guardian of a child. Learned counsel for the Commissioner could not point out any illegality in the partition. We, therefore, answer the aforesaid question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Commissioner. No order as to costs.
... ... ... ... ..... Board for Direct Taxes interpreting the law does not constitute information within the meaning of section 147(b) of the Act. In view of this decision, the circular of the Board cannot be treated as information for the purpose of section 147(b) of the Act. On interpretation, the audit has expressed its views that relief under sections 80-I and 80J has wrongly been given. Similarly, in view of the Central Board of Direct Taxes circular, the amount of penalty has wrongly been allowed is based on pronouncement of the law by the audit and the Central Board of Direct Taxes circular do not constitute information. When there was no information in the possession of the Income-tax Officer, the Income-tax Officer was not justified in issuing a notice under section 148 read with section 147(b) of the Act. The notice was without jurisdiction. Consequently, we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order and judgment of the learned single judge. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
... ... ... ... ..... e could not be brought within the purview of the provisions of section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961? 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 kist amount payable to the Government by the assessee would 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.
... ... ... ... ..... assessee submitted that the amount has not been received by the assessee and, therefore, there is no remission of liability. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal may consider the application of the judgment given in CIT v. Thirumalaiswamy Naidu and Sons 1998 230 ITR 534 in the context as to whether the excise duty has actually been refunded to the assessee or not. If the amount as mentioned in the statement of case has already been refunded then the decision which has been given by the Tribunal cannot be considered in accordance with law. The view which has been taken by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the law laid down by the apex court. Therefore, it can be said that the Tribunal was not right in holding that the excise duty refund was not assessable under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act. While giving effect to this order, the Tribunal may consider the factual position as raised by learned counsel for the assessee and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
Estate Duty, Rate of Duty, Net Principal Value, Property Passing, Goodwill
... ... ... ... ..... vi and even if the amount came from the Hindu undivided family funds the character of the amount as the stridhan of the lady has not been displaced. Patently, Smt. Champa Devi died before the deceased jai Prakash Goyal. On her death, therefore, the amount devolved on her legal heirs, i.e., her two sons, jai Prakash Goyal and Baij Nath, in Oual shares and, therefore, half of the same, i.e., Rs. 41,057, was includible in the principal value of the estate of the deceased. We, therefore, answer question No. 6 in the negative and hold that the amount of Rs. 82,144 did not revert to the Hindu undivided family on the death of Smt. Champa Devi and was inherited by her two sons, namely, the deceased jai Prakash Goyal and Baij Nath, and half of the said amount was includible in the principal value of the deceased for levy of estate duty. All the aforesaid questions stand answered accordingly. An authenticated copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Tribunal in accordance with law.
... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal has allowed only 50 per cent. of the expenses. The argument of both learned counsel for the parties heard. The assessee is no doubt engaged in the business of vending of arrack. In order to run the business effectively the activities of illicit manufacture and sale which were affecting the trade of the assessee were to be checked and certain expenses were incurred for arranging raids on others who are engaged in such other illicit trade. The expenses so incurred by the assessee was not relating to any illicit trade carried on by the assessee he has only taken steps to carry on his trade effectively and smoothly. The expenses were for the purpose of business and on the commercial expediency to carry out such business effectively and as such we are of the view that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that raid expenses are allowable under section 37(1). The reference is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department.
Dissolution of firm - new partnership firm - the preamble of the deed of dissolution negatives the contention that it was a case of mere retirement. - Merely because some partners of the old dissolved firm also became partners in the new firm, it cannot be said that it is a continuation of the old firm - The old firm stood dissolved on execution of the dissolution deed - On dissolution of the firm on May 2, 1969, this relationship terminated. It could not continue - Such a firm cannot be said to be a continuation of the old dissolved firm or to have been reconstituted under section 187(2) - Tribunal was right in law in holding that there should be two separate assessments in respect of the periods - section 187(2) will have no application
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to include interest income in the gross total income while computing the deduction under section 80-I- Tribunal is directed to state the case and refer the above quoted question of law to the High Court
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in directing the Assessing Officer to include interest income in the gross total income while computing deduction under section 80-I - appeals are allowed and the Tribunal is directed to refer to the High Court for its consideration the above question
Service Tax – Imposition of penalty for non-filing of return and making the due payment of the tax in time – Show cause notice - Assessee has sufficient cause for non- filing of return
