|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 461 to 472 of 472 Records
-
1998 (9) TMI 12
The High Court of Madras denied the benefit of deduction under section 80U of the IT Act to an assessee who was gainfully employed despite having a physical deformity that did not substantially reduce his capacity to work. The Tribunal's decision was upheld, ruling against the assessee and in favor of the Revenue for the assessment year 1980-81.
-
1998 (9) TMI 11
The High Court of Madras considered whether the assessee could claim exemption under sections 10(22) and 10(22A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1987-88. The court directed the Tribunal to refer the question of whether the assessee qualifies as an educational institution/hospital for exemption under the mentioned provisions. The Tribunal was instructed to provide a statement of case with relevant material for the decision.
-
1998 (9) TMI 10
Issues:
1. Approval of CIT for a group gratuity scheme.
2. Allowability of contribution made to the unapproved scheme as an item of expenditure under s. 37 of the IT Act, 1961.
3. Interpretation of statutory provisions related to approved gratuity fund.
4. Compliance with s. 40A(7) for deduction of gratuity.
5. Application for approval of the scheme by the assessee.
Analysis:
1. The judgment revolves around the omission to seek approval from the CIT for a group gratuity scheme, leading to a dispute over the allowability of contributions made to the unapproved scheme as an expenditure under s. 37 of the IT Act, 1961. The Tribunal allowed the deduction, contrary to the Revenue's stance, which argued that the deduction was disallowed under s. 36(1)(v) r/w s. 40A(7) of the Act due to the absence of approval.
2. The statutory provisions, including s. 36(1)(v), s. 40A(7), and the definition of an approved gratuity fund under s. 2(6) of the Act, were analyzed. The Court highlighted that the approval of the CIT is a prerequisite for any provision made for gratuity payments to employees to qualify as a deduction. The judgment emphasized that without such approval, the fund cannot be considered an approved gratuity fund, and provisions for future gratuity payments are not deductible unless contributed to an approved fund.
3. Referring to the decision in Shree Sajjan Mills Ltd. vs. CIT, the Court reiterated that deductions for gratuity must comply with the conditions of s. 40A(7) and cannot be allowed under general principles. The Tribunal's error in allowing the deduction under s. 37 without meeting the requirements of s. 40A(7) was highlighted, emphasizing the overriding effect of s. 40A on other provisions of the Act.
4. The judgment addressed the possibility for the assessee to apply for approval of the scheme, acknowledging that similar schemes adopted by other assessees had received approval. The Court permitted the assessee to seek approval within thirty days, with the outcome determining the entitlement to benefits based on the approved scheme for the assessment year in question.
In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the importance of obtaining CIT approval for gratuity schemes to qualify for deductions under the IT Act, highlighting the specific requirements outlined in the statutory provisions and the precedence of s. 40A(7) in determining the allowability of such deductions.
-
1998 (9) TMI 9
The High Court of Madras upheld the Commissioner's decision to not waive interest under section 139 of the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1981-82 and 1982-83. The delay in filing returns was not considered justified due to reasons such as a past raid and partner's demise. Previous delays in filing returns did not automatically excuse later delays. A separate waiver for different assessment years based on a partner's death did not apply to the current case. The writ petitions were dismissed.
-
1998 (9) TMI 8
Issues:
1. Interpretation of rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules regarding valuation of unquoted equity shares of private limited companies.
2. Treatment of advance tax paid shown on the assets side of the balance-sheet of the company while working out the value of equity shares on the break-up value method.
Analysis:
1. The High Court was tasked with determining whether the Tribunal was correct in directing the valuation of unquoted equity shares of private limited companies as per rule 1D of the Wealth-tax Rules, as interpreted in a previous case. The Tribunal had dismissed the appeals of the Revenue based on the decision in a specific case. However, the High Court referred to a Supreme Court judgment in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1994] 207 ITR 1, which clarified that rule 1D must be followed for valuing unquoted equity shares and that no deductions, including advance tax, are permissible under this rule. The Supreme Court held that rule 1D is exhaustive on the subject, and no deductions for capital gains tax or other liabilities should be made while valuing unquoted equity shares.
2. The dispute revolved around the treatment of advance tax paid, which was shown on the assets side of the balance-sheet of the company when determining the value of equity shares using the break-up value method. The Supreme Court, in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1994] 207 ITR 1, clarified that advance tax paid should not be considered a liability for valuation purposes. The Court explained that the advance tax paid is not an asset but is required to be shown as such in the balance-sheet. The Court emphasized that clause (i)(a) of Explanation II removes the advance tax amount from the list of assets for valuation under rule 1D. Additionally, the Court highlighted that if the advance tax paid is shown as a liability in the provision for taxation, it should not be treated as a liability for valuation purposes. The Supreme Court's interpretation differed from the previous view taken by the Gujarat High Court in CWT v. Ashok K. Parikh [1981] 129 ITR 46.
In conclusion, based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Bharat Hari Singhania v. CWT [1994] 207 ITR 1, the High Court answered the question referred to it in the negative, favoring the Revenue and against the assessee. The references were disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs.
-
1998 (9) TMI 7
Issues:
- Whether the deed of settlement dated April 1, 1981, was a deed of transfer or a deed of family settlement?
Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the nature of a deed of settlement executed by the deceased assessee in favor of his minor son. The Income-tax Officer added an amount to the assessee's income under section 64(1)(v) of the Act, considering the settlement as a transfer without consideration and a gift. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that the settlement was a transfer without consideration. The Tribunal found that there was no dispute among family members, concluding that the settlement was not a bona fide family arrangement. The counsel for the assessee argued that the settlement was a family arrangement and not a transfer. The counsel relied on legal precedents stating that family settlements need not be registered and can be oral, emphasizing the need for a bona fide resolution of family disputes.
The counsel further argued that the settlement was executed for maintaining amity among family members and that the minor son had no existing claim over the property. The counsel cited legal precedents supporting the validity of family arrangements made to avoid disputes and maintain family dignity. However, the court found that the immediate transfer of a substantial amount to the minor son, without any existing dispute or rival claims, constituted a transfer without consideration and amounted to a gift. The court upheld the decision of the authorities below to add the interest accrued on the gift to the assessee's income under section 64(1)(v) of the Income-tax Act.
In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, affirming that the deed of settlement was a transfer without consideration and not a family settlement. The court emphasized the lack of dispute among family members and the immediate transfer of the amount to the minor son as key factors in determining the nature of the settlement. The decision highlighted the importance of bona fide family arrangements in resolving disputes and ensuring fairness among family members, which was not evident in this case.
-
1998 (9) TMI 6
Issues involved: Interpretation of u/s 80J(6A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the requirement of furnishing audit report along with the return and its implications on eligibility for relief u/s 80J.
Summary:
The High Court of Madras addressed the interpretation of u/s 80J(6A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in a case where the Tribunal deemed the requirement of furnishing the audit report along with the return as directory, not mandatory. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to consider the audit report filed by the assessee before him for deciding the claim under section 80J of the Act.
The Revenue contended that the order was untenable as the audit report was not enclosed with the return but filed after assessment before the appellate authority, citing a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court to argue that the section's requirement is mandatory.
The High Court dismissed the Revenue's contention, citing a precedent from the Gujarat High Court which emphasized that the relevant stage for considering the claim under section 80J is during the assessment process by the assessing authority. The court highlighted that the main purpose of section 80J is to provide incentives to new industries, and the construction of the provision should not frustrate this objective.
The court emphasized that the timing of filing the audit report, whether before assessment or before the appellate authority, does not affect the purpose of the section. The appellate authority was deemed to have the powers of the original authority and could direct the consideration of the audit report on its merits.
Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the Tribunal was correct in interpreting u/s 80J(6A) as directory, and the assessee was eligible for relief under section 80J despite not filing the audit report along with the return of income as required.
-
1998 (9) TMI 5
Issues involved:
1. Interpretation of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the apportionment of interest paid on loans borrowed by the assessee between business income and income from dividends.
2. Determination of the correct method for calculating deduction under section 80M, specifically whether gross dividend income or net dividend income should be considered.
3. Review of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 1987-88.
Issue 1: Interpretation of Interest Apportionment
The case involved a limited company engaged in share business and receiving dividend income. The Assessing Officer found that interest paid on loans was partly attributable to dividend income and apportioned a portion of the interest to dividend earnings. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted this method, which the assessee did not object to. However, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, based on a previous order, allowed the deduction under section 80M to be calculated on gross dividend income without reducing interest expenses. The Revenue argued that this approach conflicted with established law requiring deduction of interest on borrowed money for earning dividend income. The High Court held that the question of whether the deduction should be based on gross or net dividend income was indeed a legal issue, and directed the Tribunal to refer this question to the High Court for opinion.
Issue 2: Calculation of Deduction under Section 80M
The disagreement centered on whether the deduction under section 80M should be computed on gross dividend income or net dividend income after deducting interest paid on borrowings. The Tribunal's decision to allow the deduction on gross dividend income was challenged by the Revenue, citing the Supreme Court's ruling that income from dividends should be computed after deducting interest on borrowed funds. The High Court determined that this question was a legal matter and ordered the Tribunal to refer it for the High Court's opinion, along with the first issue.
Issue 3: Review of Appellate Tribunal's Decision
The Revenue contested the Tribunal's decision not to refer the case, arguing that the Tribunal's stance contradicted established legal principles. The High Court agreed with the Revenue that the questions raised were legal in nature, and the refusal to refer them did not preclude their consideration for the assessment year in question. Consequently, the High Court allowed the Revenue's petition, directing the Tribunal to draw up a statement of the case and refer the legal questions regarding interest apportionment and deduction calculation for the High Court's opinion.
-
1998 (9) TMI 4
Interest – advance tax - The petitioner has challenged the rejection of the application filed by it before the CBDT for waiver of interest on the sum of Rs. 3,62,042 being the amount by which the first instalment of advance tax paid by it fell short of 20 per cent. of the tax liability - petitioner, submitted that the order of the Central Board Direct Taxes is illegal and arbitrary and requires to be set aside. It was submitted that under section 119(2)(a), the Board is bound to consider the case put forth by the assessee and after affording such opportunity as may be necessary to the assessee, make a reasoned order – Held that no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner. The petitioner like all other assessees to whom these provisions are applicable has to pay the interest required to be paid thereunder.
-
1998 (9) TMI 3
Penalty – concealment – search - disclosure – voluntary/involuntary - object of section 273A is to limit the reduction or waiver of penalty only to cases where the disclosure is voluntary, is in good faith, is full and complete and is made prior to the detection. The scope of the term "voluntarily" may vary depending on the context. Having regard to the context in which it occurs in section 273A(1)(b) and having regard to the scheme of the Act, it must be held to refer to disclosure made by the assessee wholly divorced from compulsion or provocation resulting from search and seizure. - Section 273A cannot be read as a charter for an assessee who has deliberately concealed his income to claim immunity from penalty after a search had been made in his premises and incriminating materials seized
-
1998 (9) TMI 2
Deducibility of the amount paid as contribution to the provident fund – Allowability of amount paid towards unexpired portion of the route permit as revenue/capital expenditure – Allowability of the amount paid to the Chief Minister's Drought Relief Fund – Deductibility of the amount paid by the assessee to the Government in order to enable the Government to credit the amount so paid to the provident fund account of the Government employees who were at that point of time working in the Assessee-Corporation
-
1998 (9) TMI 1
Recovery - Attachment of an immovable property being a residential house of the assessee - contention of the respondents that the Tax Recovery Officer has no power u/r 11 of the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act, to declare as void a transfer of property effected by the assessee during the pendency of proceedings against him under the Income-tax Act on the ground that the transfer was with the intention to defraud the Revenue, is accepted
....
|
9911796707
