Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 474 of 474 Records
-
1996 (7) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Lease, Interpretation OF STATUTES ... ... ... ... ..... e nil or fall short of the statutory percentage, in any year, the amount of the deficiency thereof can be carried forward and set off against the profits and losses from the undertaking for the subsequent year. If the profits of the subsequent year are also nil, or inadequate to absorb the deficiency brought forward, the unabsorbed deficiencies of both the prior and later years can be carried forward further to the still later year and so on. This computation of deficiency and carry forward thereof would be impossible if benefit under section 80J of the Act is granted to a lessee for the unexpired period of two years out of five years. This is the practical difficulty. In view of the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Tribunal was correct in refusing to grant the relief under section 80J of the Act to the assessee for the unexpired period of two years out of five years. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. No costs.
-
1996 (7) TMI 13 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Appeals, Competency ... ... ... ... ..... en made, although with effect from June 1, 1994, to clarify the position and cleared the doubt. The assessment year is 1990-91 but the fact remains that certain adjustments were made as a result of which the demand was raised without giving notice and hearing. Such an intimation thus assumed the nature of an order appealable under section 246 of the Act. This is further clear from the insertion made in the aforesaid provisions. In view of the aforesaid position, we hold that the Tribunal was justified in holding that such an intimation in the facts and circumstances of the case, is appealable within the meaning of section 246 of the Act. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Department. This miscellaneous civil case is thus disposed of in terms indicated above but without any orders as to costs. Counsel fee for each side is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified. Transmit a copy of this order to the Tribunal.
-
1996 (7) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
House Property, Vacancy ... ... ... ... ..... one the right to collect the rent, since the agreement holder was in occupation of the property as per the sale agreement by way of part performance of the contract of sale. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal was not correct in stating that when the property was occupied by the agreement holder, it should be deemed to be vacant and the vacancy remission should be given under section 24(1)(ix) of the Act. In view of the foregoing reasons, we consider that the order passed by the Tribunal is not in accordance with the law prevalent in the matter of letting out the property by the owner to the tenant. Therefore, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal in setting aside the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act is erroneous and the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax passed under section 263 of the Act is in order. In that view of the matter, we answer the questions referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (7) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Wealth Tax, Industrial Undertaking, Cotton Kappas, Ginning ... ... ... ... ..... e tools (iii) chance of profit (iv) risk of loss, and that control in itself is not always conclusive. He further said that in many cases the question can only be settled by examining the whole of the various elements which constitute the relationship between the parties. In the present case, the assessee s counsel submitted that even though that ginning work was entrusted to an outside agency, the assessee was having the control over the outside agency. If that is the case, the assessee must satisfy the test adumbrated in the above cited decision, which was followed by the Supreme Court in Silver Jubilee Tailoring House v. Chief Inspector of Shops and Establishments 1974 45 FIR 54. Accordingly, we direct the Tribunal to verify whether the assessee was having direct control over the outside agency in order to ascertain whether the firm in which the assessee is a partner, is engaged in the manufacturing activity. Accordingly, we are returning the question unanswered. No costs.
-
1996 (7) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Income Escaping Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... on 35, which is clearly barred by the decision of the Supreme Court in Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT 1979 119 ITR 996, for reopening the assessment under section 147(b) of the Act. The conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal that the reopening of the assessment under section 147(b) of the Act by the Income-tax Officer is bad in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, cited supra, appears to be in order. Accordingly, we answer question No. 1 referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. In so far as question No. 2 is concerned, it relates to dismissing the Departmental appeal as infructuous. Inasmuch as the reassessment was set aside by the Tribunal, it was of the opinion that there is no necessity to consider the disallowance made under section 40(c) of the Act and, therefore, the Tribunal held that the Departmental appeal has become infructuous. Accordingly, we answer question No. 2 also in the affirmative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (7) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Balancing Charge, Firm, Death, Reconstitution, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... assessee-firm could be taken into account and not deductions granted to the dissolved firm. On further appeal also, the Tribunal confirmed the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. After the death of a partner, the firm would get dissolved, unless there is a contract to the contrary. In CIT v. Empire Estate 1996 218 ITR 355, the Supreme Court held that the firm was dissolved on the death of a partner and the surviving partners did not continue the business. While so, the depreciation granted in the hands of the erstwhile firm cannot be includible under section 41(2) of the Act along with the deduction granted to the newly constituted firm. Therefore, the Tribunal was correct in holding that while computing the profits under section 41(2) of the Act, the depreciation allowed to the firm prior to the reconstitution on May 28, 1976, should not be taken into account. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and against the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (7) TMI 8 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... on record. This finding, in our opinion does not give rise to a question of law. We, therefore, refuse to grant the reference. We are satisfied that the conclusion of the Tribunal is based on appreciation of the facts which is not liable to be faulted with. In CIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. 1976 103 ITR 543 (SC) and in CIT v Kotrika Venkataswamy and Sons 1971 79 ITR 499 (SC) it is held that a conclusion based on appreciation of facts does not give rise to any question of law. The reference is not sought on the ground that there is no evidence o that the conclusion is perverse. The counsel for the applicant is unable t show as to how the aforesaid question is a question of law. The order o the Tribunal is based on a proper appreciation of facts and correct application of law. There is thus no position of referable question of law. In the result we reject this application but without any orders as to costs. Counsel s fee for each side is, however, fixed at Rs. 750, if certified.
-
1996 (7) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Exemption, House Rent Allowance ... ... ... ... ..... d Haryana High Court cited supra, the Tribunal upheld the view taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. A similar question came up for consideration before the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Rajeshwar Prasad 1994 207 ITR 926 wherein the Rajasthan High Court held that the house rent allowance received by an assessee, occupying his own house and not actually paying rent, is not exempt from tax under section 10(13A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A similar view was also taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. M. Sathyanarayana Sastry 1995 216 ITR 582 In view of the decisions rendered by the Andhra Pradesh and the Rajasthan High Courts, we are of the opinion, that the house rent allowance payable to the assessee while the assessee is residing in his own house cannot be allowed as a deduction, since the house rent allowance paid would form part of the salary. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the Department. No costs.
-
1996 (7) TMI 6 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... iled an application under section 273A(1) of the Income-tax Act for waiver of interest charges. From the facts stated above, it is apparent that before detection of the income undisclosed, the petitioner himself has approached and pointed out to the Income-tax Officer that the petitioner was not in a position to invest as provided under section 54F and furnished particulars in respect of such income voluntarily and in good faith. Therefore, this is a fit case for waiving the penalty. In regard to interest, the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax is justified. In this view of the matter, this petition is partly allowed. The impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax with regard to penalty is set aside. The respondents are directed to waive penalty only and to that extent the order dated March 25,1996 (exhibit C to the petition), passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax is modified. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.
-
1996 (7) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Assessee entered into a contract with the Government for executing certain works. A dispute arose between the assessee and the Government which was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded certain amount by way of compensation for the work done and also awarded interest. The question arose in the assessment proceedings, whether the interest awarded is income and is liable to be included in his assessment - hold that interest is income and it has to be assessed as a business receipt
-
1996 (7) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Held that Rubber replantation subsidy received by the planters cannot be held to be a revenue receipt
-
1996 (7) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Rectification of Mistakes - Held that Agricultural Income-tax Officer can not rectify the order passed by his predecessor in office, on the ground that the assessment order was passed by wrongly construing section 12 of the Kerala Agricultural Income-tax Act because error committed by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, was not an error apparent on the record.
-
1996 (7) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Reopening of assessment - Failure to disclose material facts - both the conditions required to attract the provisions of section 147(a) have been complied with by revenue in this case - reopening of assessment is valid
-
1996 (7) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Unabsorbed Depreciation - Shipping Company - Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to get depreciation allowance u/r 8 of the Income-tax Rules even in respect of ships which had formed part of the assessee's fleet for more than twenty years - Held, yes
....
|