|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 501 to 520 of 627 Records
-
2007 (1) TMI 129
Issues involved:
The judgment involves questions related to capital gains tax, joint ownership, valuation of property, expenses incurred in connection with the sale of property, relief under section 54F of the Act, and cost of improvement.
Capital gains tax:
The assessee sold land and claimed herself to be the owner of an undivided 1/5th share. The Commissioner concluded that the assessee was the sole owner, leading to the entire sale proceeds being considered in her name for capital gains calculation. The assessing authority rejected the valuation report provided by the assessee and determined the cost of acquisition based on surrounding land prices. Relief under section 54F was limited to the property documented in the name of the assessee.
Joint ownership and valuation of property:
The Commissioner found no evidence of joint ownership, and the value of the property was assessed at &8377; 1,00,000 per ground. The Tribunal rejected the valuer's report and comparison with other properties, stating they were not justified. The claim of expenses incurred in connection with the sale was also rejected due to lack of evidence.
Expenses and cost of improvement:
The Tribunal found no evidence to support additional expenses claimed by the assessee. The cost of improvement was initially granted at &8377; 5,00,000 by the Commissioner without proper material, but the Tribunal limited it to &8377; 3,00,000. The claim for further stamp duty was rejected due to lack of evidence.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal affirmed the findings that the assessee was the sole owner of the property and rejected claims of joint ownership. It also dismissed the appeal regarding expenses, valuation, and cost of improvement, citing lack of evidence. The appeals were ultimately dismissed, emphasizing that as a fact-finding authority, the Tribunal's decisions were upheld.
-
2007 (1) TMI 128
Interest on securities - Method of accounting - Whether the Tribunal was right in law in holding that interest on securities is taxable only on specified dates when it became due for payment and not on accrued basis? - HELD THAT:- In view of the deletion of section 18 of the Act with effect from April 1, 1989, the third proviso to section 145(1) was inserted with effect from April 1, 1989, which is a saving clause. Although the amendment was with effect from April 1, 1989, it clearly provides that any income by way of interest on securities shall be chargeable to tax as the income of the previous year in which such interest is due to the assessee only where no method of accounting is regularly employed by the assessee. In other words, if the assessee is maintaining cash system of accounting, the aforesaid proviso would not apply. The legislative intent is that when the assessee is maintaining the cash system of accounting, income by way of interest on securities will have to be charged to tax only when the assessee actually receives the interest and not on the date on which interest on such securities might become due.
In the instant case, there is no change in the method of accounting by the assessee. The Assessing Officer accepted the method of accounting followed by the assessee during the earlier assessment years, but, without any change in circumstance, changed the method of accounting during the financial years in question, which in our considered opinion, is unsustainable. As already observed, even though section 18 of the Act was deleted, the assessee is taxable for interest on securities only on specified dates when it becomes due for payment, in view of the third proviso to section 145(1) of the Act, which was in force during the relevant assessment years, as well as in the light of the well settled principles laid down in the catena of decisions referred.
In the result, these appeals are dismissed answering the substantial question of law raised against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
-
2007 (1) TMI 127
Issues:
Interpretation of provisions of section 292B of the Act and section 253 of the Act regarding the validity of appeals filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal.
Analysis:
The High Court was tasked with determining the legality of appeals filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal in response to an order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The Tribunal dismissed the appeals on the grounds that the Revenue had not furnished the grounds as required by column No. 14 of Form No. 36. However, the High Court found that the statutory Form No. 36 was signed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, mentioning that the relief claimed in the appeal was as per the grounds of appeal. Photocopies of the grounds of appeal signed by the Commissioner of Income-tax were also provided, attested and signed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Despite this, the Tribunal held the appeals to be invalid based on a hyper-technical view, which the High Court deemed misconceived.
The High Court highlighted that Section 292B of the Act stipulates that mere mistake, defect, or omission in any proceeding shall not invalidate it if it is in conformity with the intent and purpose of the Act. In this case, the substance and effect of the appeals filed by the Revenue were to challenge the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Therefore, the High Court concluded that the appeals were valid and should have been heard on their merits by the Tribunal instead of being dismissed. Consequently, the question referred for the court's opinion was answered in favor of the Revenue and against the assessee, affirming the validity of the appeals filed by the Revenue.
In essence, the High Court's judgment emphasized the importance of substance over form in legal proceedings, particularly when considering the validity of appeals. The court's interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Act, coupled with a practical approach to the factual matrix of the case, led to the decision that the appeals filed by the Revenue were legally sound and should not have been dismissed on technical grounds.
-
2007 (1) TMI 126
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the amounts collected by the assessee from the lessees towards sales tax represented only contingent deposits.
2. Whether the assessee is entitled to revenue deduction under section 37(1) for the expenditure incurred in partitions, false ceilings, etc., in the assessee's own premises used for housing lockers.
3. Whether the assessee is entitled to depreciation at the rate applicable to a plant at 33-1/3% on its buildings housing the safe deposit lockers.
4. Whether the expenditure incurred on false ceiling, partition, etc., in the assessee's leasehold premises were revenue in nature.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Contingent Deposits:
Assessment Years 1987-88, 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, and 1993-94:
The Tribunal referred the question of whether the amounts collected by the assessee from the lessees towards sales tax represented only contingent deposits. The Assessing Officer added these contingent deposits to the assessee's business income, invoking section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Revenue contended that these deposits should be assessed as income until paid to the government, while the assessee argued that they were not revenue receipts but were meant for sales tax payment.
The Commissioner upheld the disallowance, stating that statutory liability does not cease to exist even if disputed. However, the Tribunal, recording the assessee's undertaking to refund the amount if the sales tax levy was struck down, held that the contingent deposits could not be treated as business receipts and directed deletion of the addition.
The High Court, referencing CIT v. Southern Explosives Co. [2000] 242 ITR 107 and K. C. P. Ltd. v. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 421, ruled that the amounts collected as contingent deposits were part of the assessee's income as they were meant to meet statutory liabilities. The reference was answered in the negative, in favor of the Revenue.
2. Revenue Deduction under Section 37(1):
Assessment Years 1988-89, 1990-91, and 1991-92:
The Tribunal held that the expenditure incurred by the assessee in partitions, false ceilings, etc., in its own premises used for housing lockers was revenue in nature and deductible under section 37(1). The High Court, citing CIT v. Ooty Dasaprakash [1999] 237 ITR 902, agreed that such expenditures were for repairs and modernization and not of an enduring nature. The reference was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee.
3. Depreciation at the Rate Applicable to a Plant:
Assessment Years 1988-89, 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, and 1992-93:
The Tribunal allowed depreciation at 33-1/3% for buildings housing safe deposit lockers, treating them as "plant." The High Court, referencing CIT v. Punjab and Sind Bank Ltd. [2000] 244 ITR 393, held that lockers were essential for the bank's trade and fell within the definition of "plant." The reference was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee.
4. Expenditure on False Ceiling, Partition, etc., in Leasehold Premises:
Assessment Year 1990-91:
The Tribunal treated the expenditure on false ceiling, partition, etc., in the assessee's leasehold premises as revenue in nature. The High Court, citing CIT v. Dasaprakash [1978] 114 ITR 210, held that such expenses were incurred to beautify and maintain the premises, making them deductible under section 37 of the Act. The reference was answered in the affirmative, in favor of the assessee.
Conclusion:
The High Court delivered a comprehensive judgment addressing multiple assessment years and issues. The key findings were:
- Contingent deposits towards sales tax were part of the assessee's income.
- Expenditure on partitions, false ceilings, etc., in the assessee's own premises was revenue in nature and deductible.
- Buildings housing safe deposit lockers qualified as "plant" for depreciation purposes.
- Expenditure on false ceilings and partitions in leasehold premises was also revenue in nature and deductible.
The references were answered accordingly, favoring the Revenue on the contingent deposits issue and favoring the assessee on the other issues.
-
2007 (1) TMI 125
Issues involved: The judgment involves the interpretation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and the decision of the Tribunal regarding the admission of additional evidence, deletion of income from undisclosed investments, and the perversity of the Tribunal's decision.
Interpretation of Rule 46A and Admission of Additional Evidence: The assessee filed his return of income for the assessment year 1998-99 and disclosed certain bank accounts. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 23 lakhs to the income of the assessee based on two other bank accounts. The assessee appealed before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to adduce additional evidence. The Tribunal held that the adducing of additional evidence was in accordance with the law. The Tribunal considered the merits and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. The court found that the adducing of additional evidence was done to ensure substantial justice and did not prejudice either party. The court noted that the Revenue had sufficient opportunity to rebut the additional evidence. The appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law emerged.
Deletion of Income from Undisclosed Investments: The Tribunal confirmed the deletion of Rs. 23,00,000 from the assessee's income, which was considered income from undisclosed investments. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge the primary onus of showing that the apparent income was not real. The court did not find any substantial question of law in this regard.
Perversity of Tribunal's Decision: The Tribunal's decision to uphold the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was challenged as being perverse. However, the court found that the Tribunal's decision was in accordance with the law and did not prejudice the Revenue. The court held that no substantial question of law arose in this aspect.
-
2007 (1) TMI 124
Issues:
1. Eligibility for investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the business of manufacture of ropeways.
2. Classification of ropeways as road transport vehicles for investment allowance.
Issue 1:
The case involved the eligibility of the assessee for investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the business of manufacture of ropeways. The Tribunal had to determine whether the assembly of components for ropeways constituted manufacturing/industrial activity, allowing investment allowance on plant and machinery. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) accepted the plea, stating that even if the timber transported via ropeways was used in manufacturing processes indirectly, the benefit should apply. However, the Tribunal ruled against the assessee, stating that the basic requirements of section 32A were not met as the assessee was not engaged in manufacturing or production of any article or goods as per the Act.
Issue 2:
The second issue revolved around the classification of ropeways as road transport vehicles for investment allowance. The Tribunal determined that the assessee did not qualify for investment allowance under section 32A as the machinery was used for transport business, not for manufacturing or production purposes as required by the Act. The assessee argued that being a small-scale industrial unit and engaging in the manufacture of ropeways should entitle her to the investment allowance. However, the Tribunal found no evidence to support the machinery's installation for production purposes, leading to the denial of the investment allowance claim.
In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision against the assessee, ruling that the machinery installed for transport purposes did not meet the criteria for investment allowance under section 32A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court found no indication that the machinery was intended for production or assembly of any article or thing, thereby denying the investment allowance claim. The judgment highlighted the importance of meeting the specific requirements outlined in the Act for eligibility for investment allowances, ultimately deciding in favor of the Revenue.
-
2007 (1) TMI 123
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the interpretation of rectification u/s 155 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in a case where the return of the firm had only been lodged, and not where the assessment of the firm had been completed u/s 143(3).
Interpretation of Section 155(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The court referred to Section 155(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which allows for the amendment of an order of assessment when the assessment had been completed. The term "completed assessment" signifies a positive act of completion, distinct from the expiration of the authority to assess due to the limitation period. The jurisdiction under Section 155 is limited to amending an assessment order to include the correct share as a consequence of firm assessment or income adjustments. This principle was supported by the case of Hansraj Dhingra v. Union of India [1975] 98 ITR 397 (Cal).
Comparison with Calcutta High Court Case:
The court drew parallels with a case before the Calcutta High Court where there was no assessment order u/s 143(3). Similarly, in the present case, the original assessment was made u/s 143(1)(a) and later sought to be rectified u/s 155 after the belated filing of the firm's return. The court agreed with the Calcutta High Court's decision, stating that rectification under Section 155 is impermissible when the assessment is not completed u/s 143(3) and when the firm's return is only lodged.
Conclusion:
The court answered the substantial question of law in the affirmative, favoring the assessee and dismissing the tax case appeal by the Revenue. It was held that rectification u/s 155 is not permissible when the assessment under section 143(3) is not completed, especially when the firm's return is only lodged. No costs were awarded in this matter.
-
2007 (1) TMI 122
Validity Of service of notice u/s 143(2) - service beyond period of limitation or not - HELD THAT:- The fact that on January 11, 2001, Mr. Harish Bansal, chartered accountant, appeared before the Assessing Officer and filed his power of attorney and was asked to file details/information and thereafter on February 7, 2001, one Shri Mohammad Aslam, assistant along with M/s. S. Prasad and Co., chartered accountant, appeared before the Assessing Officer and filed a letter seeking adjournment, goes to show that notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has been duly served on the assessee through his representative on December 29, 2000, and that is why the representatives of the assessee have been appearing before the Assessing Officer in pursuance of the notice.
Accordingly, we hold that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal erred in observing that the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act has not been served upon the assessee and the assessment stands vitiated.
The substantial question of law is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
The present appeal filed by the Revenue is accordingly allowed and the order passed by the CIT(A) cancelling the impugned assessment is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the CIT(A) to consider the matter afresh in accordance with the law.
-
2007 (1) TMI 121
Issues involved: Determination of whether the expenditure incurred on the installation of a water treatment plant is revenue expenditure or capital expenditure.
Summary:
The High Court of Kerala considered a case where the assessee, a private limited company engaged in manufacturing rubber products, installed a water pollution treatment plant. The assessing authority initially treated the expenditure as capital expenditure, but the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal considered it as revenue expenditure. The Revenue appealed, arguing that the expenditure should be treated as capital. The court analyzed various legal principles and previous judgments to determine the nature of the expenditure.
The court emphasized that the distinction between capital and revenue expenditure is complex and depends on the specific circumstances of each case. It cited the principles laid down by the apex court in various cases, highlighting that the enduring benefit to the business is a key factor in determining the nature of the expenditure. The court noted that the installation of a water treatment plant, being a permanent asset with enduring advantages, should be considered capital expenditure. It explained that even if the plant did not directly increase production, its installation was necessary for compliance with statutory requirements and for maintaining a pollution-free environment.
Ultimately, the court allowed the appeal and held that the expenditure incurred for installing the water treatment plant should be classified as capital expenditure. It disagreed with the previous decision in Steel Complex Ltd.'s case, stating that the universal application of that decision is not appropriate and each case should be evaluated based on its specific facts and circumstances.
-
2007 (1) TMI 120
Issues:
1. Appeal against order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal regarding wealth-tax assessment for assessment years 1996-97 to 1998-99.
2. Interpretation of definition of "assets" in Wealth-tax Act.
3. Effect of amendment to the definition of "assets" in the Act on wealth-tax assessment.
Analysis:
1. The appeal before the High Court was against an order passed by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal concerning wealth-tax assessment for the years 1996-97 to 1998-99. The Revenue had filed three appeals, but the Court was specifically considering one appeal, W. T. A. No. 31 of 2005, as it involved different facts due to an amendment in the Wealth-tax Act not applicable to the other two appeals.
2. The crux of the matter was the interpretation of the definition of "assets" in the Wealth-tax Act. The assessee argued that since the property in question was a commercial building, it did not fall under the definition of "assets" as per the Act. The relevant section at that time excluded certain residential properties from the definition of "assets." The Revenue needed to establish that the building was not commercial but residential to subject it to wealth-tax.
3. The Court observed that the Tribunal had correctly noted that based on the language of the Act, the claim of the assessee should have been allowed. The absence of a conclusion by the Assessing Officer that the building was residential, coupled with the clear language of the Act, led to the dismissal of the appeal. The Court found no substantial question of law arising from the Tribunal's decision.
4. Regarding the other two appeals, W. T. A. Nos. 32 of 2005 and 33 of 2005, the Court adjourned them to a later date as similar issues had arisen in other cases already admitted for consideration. The Court directed the file of a related case to be sent for reference. Ultimately, W. T. A. No. 31 of 2005 was dismissed based on the specific circumstances and interpretation of the law presented in that appeal.
-
2007 (1) TMI 119
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the search conducted u/s 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Validity of the assessment proceedings initiated u/s 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Delay in challenging the search and the issuance of notice u/s 153A.
Summary:
1. Legality of the Search Conducted u/s 132(1):
The petitioners challenged the search conducted on February 16, 2005, arguing that there were no valid "reasons to believe" as required by clauses (a), (b), and (c) of section 132(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court noted that the petitioners failed to disclose the shareholding details and the interconnected nature of their business dealings, which led to an adverse inference against them. The Revenue argued that the search was based on sufficient information and was conducted in accordance with the law. The court found that the maze of commercial dealings among the Jain group justified a simultaneous search on all businesses, concluding that the search was neither roving nor fishing in nature.
2. Validity of Assessment Proceedings u/s 153A:
The petitioners also contested the assessment proceedings initiated u/s 153A of the Act, claiming them to be illegal. The court observed that the petitioners did not challenge the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act, which were issued subsequent to the search. The court emphasized that the petitioners should participate in the proceedings u/s 153A to vindicate their stand. The court found no reason to exercise its extraordinary powers under article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the proceedings.
3. Delay in Challenging the Search and Notice u/s 153A:
The Revenue highlighted the significant delay of sixteen months in challenging the search and the issuance of notice u/s 153A. The court was not impressed with the petitioners' argument that the writ petitions became necessary only upon the issuance of the notice dated July 10, 2006. Although the court refrained from dismissing the petitions solely on the grounds of laches, it noted the delay as significant.
Conclusion:
The writ petitions were dismissed, and the court ordered the petitioners to pay nominal costs of Rs. 15,000 to the respondents within six weeks. The period of limitation for the Assessing Officer to conduct and complete the original proceedings was extended by four months due to the pendency of these proceedings.
-
2007 (1) TMI 118
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the assessment of replacement expenditure on machinery as capital or revenue expenditure for the assessment year 2000-01. The questions raised include whether the Tribunal was correct in allowing deduction for replacement of machinery as revenue expenditure, whether replacement of complete machinery can be treated as revenue expenditure, and whether the Tribunal was right in deciding the issue without considering the concept of block of assets.
Assessment of Replacement Expenditure:
The Appellate Tribunal found that the replacement of machinery should be considered as revenue expenditure, based on the provisions of the Act rather than the accounting practice of the assessee. The court referred to a previous decision where it was held that all machinery together forms a complete unit capable of production, and thus, each replaced machine cannot be seen as independent. Consequently, the expenditure on replacement of machinery was deemed as revenue expenditure, and the Tribunal's decision in favor of the assessee was upheld.
Concept of Block of Assets:
Regarding the concept of "block of assets," the court explained its introduction and purpose, emphasizing that it was not applicable to the nature of expenditure incurred by the respondent. The block of assets concept aimed to streamline depreciation provisions and allow terminal depreciation. In this case, the assessee replaced worn-out machinery parts without acquiring new assets or enduring capital advantages. No claim for depreciation under the block of assets concept was made, and the Department did not object to the allowance claimed. The court held that as per previous decisions, the question of block of assets did not arise in this case, and therefore, no substantial legal question was identified for consideration. The appeal was dismissed based on the established legal principles.
Conclusion:
The High Court of Madras dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, upholding the Tribunal's decision to treat the replacement expenditure on machinery as revenue expenditure for the assessment year 2000-01. The court found that the concept of block of assets was not applicable in this scenario, as the replacement did not result in the acquisition of new assets with enduring advantages. The decision was in line with previous judgments and no substantial legal question was found to warrant further consideration.
-
2007 (1) TMI 117
Issues involved: Challenge to transfer of file from Kolkata to Mumbai u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without opportunity of hearing.
Summary:
The High Court of Calcutta heard a writ petition challenging the transfer of a file from Kolkata to Mumbai u/s 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners argued that the transfer was done without inviting objection and without granting them a hearing. The court noted that no affidavits or records were produced by the Revenue despite directions, leading to the petitioners' assertions being deemed correct.
In analyzing the issue, the court referred to section 127 of the Act, highlighting that for inter-city transfers, principles of natural justice must be followed by giving the assessee an opportunity of hearing and recording reasons for the transfer. However, for intra-city transfers, no such opportunity is required. Since the transfer from Kolkata to Mumbai was inter-city, the court found that the transfer was in violation of sub-section (1) of section 127 as no hearing was provided to the petitioners. Citing the precedent set in Nitin Developers [2006] 284 ITR 605 (Delhi), the court set aside and quashed the order of transfer.
The court allowed the writ petition, granting the Revenue the liberty to take action in accordance with the law after issuing notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. No costs were awarded, and all parties were instructed to act on a xerox signed copy of the order.
-
2007 (1) TMI 116
Issues Involved:
1. Authority of IDS officials to make queries u/s 131.
2. Applicability of the 1999 circular.
3. Jurisdiction of TDS officials prior to 1999.
4. Implications of the Allahabad High Court and Apex Court decisions.
Summary:
1. Authority of IDS officials to make queries u/s 131:
The appellant, an assessee under the Income-tax Act, 1961, challenged the authority of IDS officials to make queries u/s 131, a power typically vested in Assessing Officers. The appellant argued that IDS officials were not given this power prior to the 1999 circular.
2. Applicability of the 1999 circular:
The learned single judge dismissed the writ petition, considering the 1989 and 1999 circulars. The 1999 circular empowered IDS officials to make queries u/s 131, which was not expressly given before. The appellant contended that the 1999 circular could not be retrospectively applied, citing the apex court decision in CIT v. Patel Brothers and Co. Ltd. [1995] 215 ITR 165.
3. Jurisdiction of TDS officials prior to 1999:
The court examined whether IDS officials had implied powers to make queries before the 1999 circular. The learned single judge held that IDS officials had implied power to make queries as they could assess penalties for defaults. However, the appellate court found that without express authority, IDS officials making such queries were without jurisdiction.
4. Implications of the Allahabad High Court and Apex Court decisions:
The Revenue relied on the Division Bench decisions in Reckitt Colman of India Ltd. v. Asst. CIT (TDS) [2001] 252 ITR 550 and Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. v. Assessing Officer [2001] 248 ITR 113. The apex court set aside the Allahabad High Court judgment in Peerless General, emphasizing that the issue of jurisdiction need not be decided as the appellants succeeded on other grounds. The appellate court concluded that the IDS official's queries were without jurisdiction prior to the 1999 circular.
Conclusion:
The appeal succeeded, setting aside the judgment and order under appeal. The requisition made by the IDS official dated September 9, 1996, was quashed. The judgment clarified that authorities could take appropriate steps under the statute and notifications, and the plea of limitation would not be raised by the assessee. The appeal was disposed of without any order as to costs.
-
2007 (1) TMI 115
Issues involved:
The judgment involves the assessment year 1992-93 and the relief u/s 80HHC. The questions raised include the treatment of unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance, consideration under an agreement for sale of goods, computation of relief under the proviso to section 80HHC(3) in respect of incentives received, and the handling of appeals by the Tribunal and Commissioner.
Treatment of unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance:
The assessing authority deducted unabsorbed depreciation and investment allowance from earlier years to calculate the relief u/s 80HHC. The assessee argued that these should not be set off against business profits for this purpose, claiming entitlement to relief u/s 80HHC(1A). The Tribunal, however, held that u/s 80AB, these should be deducted from business profits for determining the relief u/s 80HHC, affirming the lower authorities' orders.
Consideration under an agreement for sale of goods:
The Tribunal was asked to consider whether the entire amount receivable under an agreement for sale of goods should be treated as sale consideration for computing relief u/s 80HHC. The Tribunal's decision on this matter was not explicitly mentioned in the judgment.
Computation of relief under the proviso to section 80HHC(3) in respect of incentives received:
The Tribunal rejected the applicant's ground regarding the computation of relief under the proviso to section 80HHC(3) for incentives received, stating that the relief under section 80HHC was under appeal before them. The Tribunal's decision on this issue was not explicitly provided in the judgment.
Handling of appeals by the Tribunal and Commissioner:
The Tribunal's handling of the appeal, including remitting the matter back to the Commissioner or dismissing the appeal, was questioned. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's order did not address the issue on appeal before him, leading to the dismissal of the applicant's appeal on this matter.
Conclusion:
The court rejected the applicant's contentions regarding the computation of relief u/s 80HHC, citing the Supreme Court's interpretation that section 80AB has an overriding effect in calculating deductions under Chapter VI-A. The court emphasized that section 80HHC deductions must align with the provisions of the Act, particularly section 80AB, and upheld the Tribunal's decision. The references were answered against the assessee, with no costs awarded.
-
2007 (1) TMI 114
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are:
1. Whether the assessment order u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act was barred by limitation?
2. Whether the approval of the Range DCIT taken by the Assessing Officer vitiated the assessment proceeding and consequent thereof the assessment order issued by the Assessing Officer?
Issue 1: Assessment Order Barred by Limitation:
The dispute pertains to the assessment year 1993-94. The contention was that the assessment order passed on February 25, 1997, under section 144 was beyond the limitation period as prescribed under section 153(1)(a). It was argued that the assessment year ended on March 31, 1994, and the two-year limitation period extended up to March 31, 1996, making the assessment order passed in 1997 time-barred. The Tribunal held that the order was indeed barred by limitation as per the provisions of the Act.
Issue 2: Approval of Range DCIT and Quasi-Judicial Powers:
The assessment order was made with the approval of the Range Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax. The argument presented was whether the Assessing Officer's quasi-judicial powers were compromised by seeking approval from a higher authority. The respondent argued that the Assessing Officer's decision-making should not be influenced by higher authorities, citing a Supreme Court judgment. However, the court found insufficient evidence to conclude that the approval process involved undue influence or control. Given the decision on the first issue, the court declined to provide a definitive answer on this matter.
In conclusion, the High Court of GAUHATI dismissed the appeal by the Revenue, affirming the decision that the assessment order was barred by limitation. The court also declined to provide a conclusive answer regarding the influence of the Range Deputy Commissioner's approval on the assessment proceeding, citing insufficient evidence and the decision on the first issue.
-
2007 (1) TMI 113
Powers Of the Revenue u/s 245 - Refund claim - Adjustment of amount against outstanding demand - disallowance on the cross-charges/administrative expenses - Whether the petitioner is entitled to refund for the assessment year 2001-02 of the amount already computed by the Revenue by its orders dated December 28, 2005 and May 1, 2006 - HELD THAT:- We find that no notice u/s 245 was issued to the assessee proposing to set off the demand against the outstanding tax amount due from it. There is no explanation why such notice was not issued except saying that after the order of the Tribunal dated August 17, 2005, the Revenue was processing the refund application made by the writ petitioner. It could dispose of this application only on December 27, 2005. Even at this stage, there was no proposal to invoke section 245 although on this date there was an outstanding demand for the assessment year 2000-01. The petitioner was, therefore, compelled to come to this court assailing the delay in processing this application for refund. The application moved by the Revenue in this court appears to be a device to pass the responsibility of taking a decision u/s 245 on to the court only because the petitioner had come to this court. To us, this does not appear to be a sufficient justification for by-passing the procedural requirement u/s 245.
We do not wish to comment on the merits of the orders passed by the Tribunal, for the assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 since that is to be examined in the separate appeals filed by the Revenue in this court. As and when those appeals are decided, the necessary consequential orders will be passed. However, the fact that neither of the orders of the Tribunal in those cases has been stayed by this court while admitting the appeal is a relevant factor to be taken note of by the Revenue while deciding to invoke the power u/s 245.
Administrative expenses/cross charges - Assessee has succeeded up to this court for the earlier assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-00. For the assessment year 2001-02, the assessee has succeeded before the Tribunal. Therefore, to the extent of the demand on account of administrative expenses/cross charges, there is no justification for withholding the refund. In the event of the Revenue succeeding before this court, the amounts would become payable by the assessee and there are sufficient provisions of the Act to take care of such a contingency. The Revenue, by delaying the refund, is actually incurring an additional expenditure since it has to pay interest on the amount of refund as well as delayed refund as contemplated under sections 243 and 244A. This may not, in the larger context, be in the best of interests of the Revenue itself.
Unless there are sound reasons justifying the formation of an opinion that the tax that has become payable cannot be recovered from the assessee as and when the issues are ultimately decided, the power u/s 245 should not lightly be invoked. All of the factors weigh against the Revenue invoking the power u/s 245 in the present case.
From the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and the chart presented showing the status of demands as on August 8, 2006 (which has not been disputed by learned counsel for the Revenue) it appears that the petitioner has not only paid the entire demands raised on all other issues but has also paid Rs. 4.26 crores towards the demand on cross charges.
In our considered view, there is no warrant for the Revenue to seek to set off the refund due to the petitioner on account of cross charges against the outstanding demand of tax on such account for the subsequent years. The delay in the processing of the refund claim and issuing the initial order dated December 28,2005, and the subsequent order dated May 1, 2006, has not, in our view, been satisfactorily explained. The Revenue must, in our view, suffer the statutory consequence of payment of interest on the delayed refund.
We, accordingly, hold that the petitioner is entitled to refund for the assessment year 2001-02, as already computed by the Revenue while giving appeal effect vide orders dated December 28, 2005 and May 1, 2006, after adjusting the refund of Rs. 1.10 crores already made pursuant to the order dated August 17, 2006, passed by this court. Accordingly, a direction by way of a mandamus is issued to the respondents to refund to the petitioner the aforesaid amount due to it for the assessment year 2001-02 after making the adjustment as aforesaid. The petitioner would also be entitled to interest on such amount of refund as well as interest on delayed refund as per the provisions of the Act. The respondents are directed to make the refund to the petitioner of the sum as aforesaid together with interest thereon and interest on delayed refund as per the provisions of the Act within a period of four weeks and in any event not later than February 15, 2007. The respondents will also pay to the petitioner the costs of this petition which are quantified at Rs. 20,000.
The writ petition and all pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
-
2007 (1) TMI 112
Application for the condonation of delay - delay of 11 days - Whether section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, shall apply in case of an appeal filed u/s 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - HELD THAT:- That the Legislature has used the words "shall be filed" in sub-section (2) means that the limitation for filing the appeal is as provided therein but that does not make section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963, inapplicable. The High Court being the superior court, the power to condone the delay in filing the appeal must be read to be existent, more so by virtue of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, unless there is clear indication of its exclusion by implication. The use of the word "shall" and the longer period of limitation (120 days) are not indicators of such exclusion. Nor from the position that section 260A is silent about the applicability of section 29(2), can any justifiable inference be drawn for inapplicability of that provision. What is obvious need not be stated and, therefore, the Legislature may have thought fit that it was not necessary to express specifically about the power of the High Court to condone the delay in view of existence of section 29(2). When the statute is silent, the presumption is not drawn automatically about the exclusion of section 29(2) or for that matter section 5 of the Limitation Act. In our thoughtful consideration of the whole matter there is nothing to indicate that the application of section 29(2) is excluded except providing a special limitation. Section 260A does not necessarily imply the exclusion of sections 4 to 24 of the Limitation Act.
Thus, there is an overwhelming line of cases holding section 5 of the Limitation Act applicable to the matters in appeal and reference applications to the High Court under the Indian Income-tax Act, the Customs Act and the Bombay Sales Tax Act. Our conclusion in this regard is in line with these cases.
We shall finally conclude thus: Section 5 of the Limitation Act shall apply in case of the appeals filed u/s 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
2007 (1) TMI 111
Issues involved: The validity of trusts created without identifiable beneficiaries and inclusion of dividend income in the hands of the assessee.
Validity of trusts: The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal referred the issue of whether the trusts created by transferring shares were valid when the beneficiaries were not in existence or identifiable at the time of creation. The Department contended that the trusts were not validly created, leading to the addition of dividend income in the assessee's hands under section 147(a)/148.
Inclusion of dividend income: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) allowed the assessee's appeal and deleted the dividend income from the assessment, following a previous decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The Department filed second appeals, arguing that the matter was still pending before the High Court. However, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals for the assessment years, citing the unavailability of the High Court's decision.
Judgment: The High Court considered a similar case previously and ruled in favor of the assessee. Consequently, the High Court answered both questions in favor of the assessee and against the Revenue, following the precedent set in the earlier case. No costs were awarded in this matter.
-
2007 (1) TMI 110
Undisclosed income of the block period - Non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2) - Non-issuance of notice u/s 143(2), did not invalidate the assessment relating to the block period and was at best a mere procedural irregularity? - HELD THAT:- It is true that the return was filed by the assessee in response to a notice u/s 158BC(a). Clause (b) of section 158BC provides that the provisions of section 142 as well as sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143 shall apply even in the case of a block assessment so far as may be. There is no dispute that in the case of assessment under Chapter XIV, a notice u/s 143(2) is mandatory where the Assessing Officer proceeds to make an inquiry as provided in section 142. Similarly, the provision of section 143(2) will be mandatorily applicable in the case of a block assessment also where the Assessing officer in repudiation of the return filed u/s 158BC(a) proceeds to make an inquiry in the proceeding under Chapter XIV-B. Once the power of inquiry u/s 142 is invoked, the Assessing Officer has no option but to follow the provisions of section 143(2).
Thus, we hold that the provisions of section 142 and sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143 will have mandatory application in a case where the Assessing Officer in repudiation of the return filed in response to a notice issued u/s 158BC(a) proceeds to make an inquiry. The defects crept in cannot be cured at this stage in view of the limitation provided in section 143(2). The assessment order in the instant case thus suffers from both procedural and jurisdictional error. The option left with the Assessing Officer is to compute the income and levy taxes on the basis of the return filed by the assessee.
The question formulated is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Consequent thereupon, the orders passed by the authorities below are set aside. The appeal, accordingly, stands allowed.
............
|
9911796707
