|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 481 to 500 of 501 Records
-
1996 (9) TMI 21 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Succession, Valuation Of Stock, Firm, Company, Market Value ... ... ... ... ..... onsumable products. (iii) To act as merchants and commission agents, manufacturers, manufacturers representatives and sole selling agents of all products in which they deal. The Tribunal on the basis thereof has recorded a finding that the dissolution is consequential to the transfer of business to the company and it will have to be held, considering the facts and circumstances of the case that it is not a case where dissolution preceded the transfer. The consistent fact findings of the three authorities rule out the question of valuation at market rate. We have already observed, at the outset that the framing of the question is contrary to the factual situations referred to above. For all the above reasons, we answer the question in the affirmative---against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of the judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1996 (9) TMI 20 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration, Liquor ... ... ... ... ..... hip is against the Abkari Act as it is hit by the provisions of rule 6(22) of the Rules. This is in view of the fact that the licence could be understood to be belonging to the licensee in regard thereto solely and cannot be understood, after the formation of the partnership to be subject to the rights of other partners in regard thereto. As stated above we have followed the said decision. Learned counsel Shri P. Balachandran attempted to state that the two decisions of the apex court relied on above by the Full Bench are thought to be requiring reconciliation by the apex court itself. Be that as it may, however, if it is so, the position is governed by the Full Bench binding on us. For the above reasons, we answer the above questions in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of the judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1996 (9) TMI 19 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appeal, Additional Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... roducing the evidence before the Assessing Officer. Alternatively further the assessee also has to show its relevance to the grounds of appeal sought to be urged. Lastly, the assessee also has to establish that the Assessing Officer did not afford him sufficient opportunity in regard thereto. The material on record is abundantly clear that no attempt was made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. In addition thereto, the contention raised before the Appellate Tribunal shows no regard to follow the requirements of the above rules. Taking into consideration the above situation, even if we are left to ourselves we would not be able to come to any other conclusion than the one reached both by the Commissioner as well as by the Tribunal. For the above reasons reference stands disposed of as above. A copy of the judgment under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1996 (9) TMI 18 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Rectification ... ... ... ... ..... n. There is no error apparent on the face of the record even after taking into consideration the statutory provisions of s. 50A of the ED Act, 1953. In our judgment, the AAC, Trivandrum, in passing the order (Annexure-C) trying to rectify the situation and also the order of the Tribunal in regard thereto (para 9 thereof) are specimens of error of law. The insistence that it is only when the gift-tax is paid it gets reducible from the estate duty payable is to be understood in the context of the situation showing payment of gift-tax admittedly and undisputedly in the estate duty proceedings. For the above reasons, we sustain the order (Annexure C) of the AAC and thereby direct the GTO, Award, Trivandrum to act according to the directions therein. For the above reasons, we answer the questions referred. Answers to questions Nos. 1 to 3 are unnecessary and we decline to answer them. Question No. 4 is answered in the affirmative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
1996 (9) TMI 17 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Deduction, Infraction Of Law, Provident Fund ... ... ... ... ..... t. In such a situation of the factual matrix, it is not possible to sustain the reasoning of the Tribunal. It is needless to state that the factors that are placed by the assessee relating to the feature of the financial stringency cannot travel in the process of determination of the tax liability, much less in regard to the consideration of tax deduction on that basis. Again, it is elementary that the considerations regarding tax liability vis-a-vis deductions from liability are entirely different and considerations dealing with deductions are on a most stringent pedestal in the process. For all the above reasons, the question is answered in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee, to the effect that the amounts are not deductible under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1996 (9) TMI 16 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Nature Of Income, Godowns And Warehouses, Heads Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... hich the Tribunal has approached the question, we have no hesitation to record that left to ourselves, we would not have reached any other conclusion in the context of undisputed facts appearing in the statement of case. Incidentally, this court in CIT v. Malabar and Pioneer Hosiery (P.) Ltd. 1996 221 ITR 117 (in which one of us---myself---was a party delivering the judgment), had occasion to consider the question of an assessee deriving income from a commercial asset connected with the activity although the income under consideration may emanate from a document relating to the transfer of property. For the above reasons, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We also answer questions Nos. 2 and 3 in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1996 (9) TMI 15 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Religious Institution ... ... ... ... ..... 42B(2) and although technically it would have been open to the appellants to urge their contentions before the appellate authority, namely, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, that would be a mere exercise in futility when a superior officer, namely, the Commissioner has already passed a well considered order in the exercise of his statutory jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of section 42B of the Act holding that 21 varieties of the compressed woollen felt manufactured by the appellants are not eligible for exemption under entry 6 of Schedule I to the Act. In view of the discussion hereinbefore, exhibits P-4 and P-5 orders passed by the respondents are set aside. Accordingly, the first respondent is directed to complete the assessment afresh on merits and in view of exhibit P-1 order of the Tribunal. The first respondent is further directed to issue notice to the petitioner before completing the assessment as directed above. The original petition is disposed of as above.
-
1996 (9) TMI 14 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Long-term Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... provisions with certain changes have been placed in section 48 emphasising further that this section 48 also has been totally recast with effect from April 1, 1993, by the Finance Act, 1992. It is on the basis of this reasoning referring to the proper place of the said situation, the apex court has understood the correct and legal meaning of the words such income . In view of the above situation, the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal needs to be stamped as proper and correct. However, in view of the above discussion, in our judgment, we need to answer only question No. 2 which is in the proper context of the above discussion. Accordingly, we decline to answer questions Nos. 1 and 3 and we answer question No. 2 in the negative, against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for passing consequential orders.
-
1996 (9) TMI 13 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Motor Vehicles, Hire, Rates ... ... ... ... ..... The passengers who travel in such buses travel on hire. This would obviously mean that the buses in regard to which depreciation is claimed would have to be understood in the necessary context of the situation with regard to the claim for depreciation that the buses are running on hire. As already stated, it may be that in a given situation it must be an individual, in another situation a group or at different situations it may be a marriage party. In our judgment, the situation would not make any difference. When vehicles in regard to which depreciation is claimed do not run otherwise than for hire, obviously, the situation would be governed by item E(1A) reproduced above. For all the above reasons, the above question gets answer in the affirmative---against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1996 (9) TMI 12 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Firm, Transfer ... ... ... ... ..... n that exercise of powers under section 34 gets well justified. Learned counsel wanted to submit that in fact documents Nos. 210 and 211 really transfers the shares also of others in the firm Valuk Rubber Estate. We are afraid that we cannot permit ourselves to transgress the limits of the question we are expected to answer. All that has taken place is the consequence of the exercise of powers under section 34 of the Act and a consequential order for fresh disposal in the light of the observations and directions given by the Deputy Commissioner. In our judgment, no other conclusion is possible other than the one reached by the Deputy Commissioner. For the above reasons, we answer the question in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Deputy Commissioner of Agricultural Income-tax and Sales tax, Kozhikode, for passing consequential orders.
-
1996 (9) TMI 11 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Interest In Firm, Valuation, Market Value, Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... TR 559 decided on August 7, 1996 (of which, one of us---myself, delivered the judgment), had occasion to consider the question of an identical nature. This was in a situation where the value of the closing stock was enhanced to the extent of the market price obtainable in retail sales. The court is concerned with the process of valuation of the closing stock and the relevant date in regard thereto would be the date of death of the person in regard to whose estate proceedings are initiated. This court has held therein that fixation and valuation in the matter of closing stock is an undisputed factual situation. No other course is open to us under the circumstances. For the above reasons, we answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the accountable person. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of this court and the signature of the Registrar, shall be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, for passing consequential orders.
-
1996 (9) TMI 10 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Powers, Tribunal, Carry Forward, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... e Revenue had requested the Tribunal to refer the above questions which, however, was refused. Situated thus, the Revenue filed the aforesaid Civil Rule No. 19(M) of 1991 and this court directed the Tribunal to refer the above questions. Hence, the present reference. We have heard Mr. G. K. Joshi, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. None appears on behalf of the assessee. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment for the assessment year 1980-81 under section 144 of the Act after considering the brought forward losses of Rs. 3,00,137. As there was no appeal against the said order, the order became final and, therefore, in our opinion, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to reopen it on appeal. In view of the above, we answer both the questions in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court shall be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Guwahati.
-
1996 (9) TMI 9 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
HUF, Partial Partition, Gift, Firm, Interest To Partner ... ... ... ... ..... of the partner, namely, Sushil Kumar, the karta of the joint Hindu family. Since the partition was held to be invalid in the case of the Hindu undivided family the interest paid on the aforesaid five deposits of Rs. 20,000 each was disallowed under section 40(b) of the Act treating the same to have been paid to the partner, Sushil Kumar. Since we have held that the partition was valid, the disallowance of the interest under section 40(b) loses its validity. We, therefore, answer the aforesaid question in the negative and hold that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the interest paid by the assessee-firm to the various members of the Hindu undivided family of Sushil Kumar and Sons has to be disallowed as per provisions of section 40(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. References answered accordingly. An authenticated copy of this order be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in accordance with section 260 of the Act. The parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1996 (9) TMI 8 - SUPREME COURT
Once the Income-tax Officer has done all that he has to do under the Act and, makes a draft order and then refers to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as required by section 144B, permitting the assessee to file a revised return would involve duplication of work and multiplicity of proceedings - held that the said right has to be exercised before the making of draft assessment order in cases where section 144B was applicable
-
1996 (9) TMI 7 - SC ORDER
Agreement is in two parts - two parts are interdependent but yet the consideration for the sale of trade secrets & consideration of technical assistance is separately provided for and mentioned under separate sections - taxability of 1,65,000 U. S. dollars which is stipulated as the consideration for sale of trade secrets - agreement specifically says that the said sale is effected in Japan - it can not be said that any part of the said amount has been earned in India.
-
1996 (9) TMI 6 - SUPREME COURT
Interest on compensation paid under Land Acquisition Act - held that section 2(28A) covers such interest
-
1996 (9) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT
Accrual of Income - Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the interest for the assessment year 1971-72, had already accrued to the assessee on October 31, 1970, under the mercantile system of accountancy - Whether Tribunal was right in holding that the subsequent relinquishment of interest by a resolution dated November 24, 1970, did not affect the tax liability of the assessee on accrual basis - Held, yes
-
1996 (9) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
How the cost of the acquisition of the original shares should be determined for the purposes of capital gains tax - Tribunal was justified in determining the cost of acquisition of the original shares by spreading the original cost over the original and the bonus shares and then averaging the same and on that basis working out the capital gain - High Court held that the valuation made by the Revenue regarding the cost of the original shares is proper and valid
-
1996 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Questions relating to computation of capital gains on sale of bonus shares - Supreme Court observed that the High Court had failed to give reasons for rejection of the applications filed by the Revenue under section 256(2) - We direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad, to refer the questions of law in the different cases
-
1996 (9) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Whether a bona fide statutory tenant has the right to continue in possession even after an order of purchase was made under section 269UE(1) in Chapter XX-C
....
|
