|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 80 Records
-
1968 (2) TMI 20
Issues:
1. Scope of an order of the Commissioner of Income-tax in revising an assessment based on a Tribunal's order.
2. Interpretation of a Tribunal's direction regarding inclusion of income under section 16(3) in an assessment.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a petition for certiorari filed by the assessee challenging the Commissioner of Income-tax's order revising the assessment. The Commissioner revised the assessment to include the share income of the assessee's wife and minor sons under section 16(3) of the Income-tax Act. The question was whether the Commissioner's action was within the scope of the Tribunal's order under section 66(5). The Tribunal's order directed registration of the firm and modifications consequential to the grant of registration in the hands of the partners. The Commissioner relied on this direction to include the additional income in the assessment. The Court examined whether the Commissioner's interpretation of the Tribunal's order was correct.
2. The Tribunal's order did not explicitly direct the inclusion of income under section 16(3) in the assessee's assessment. The Tribunal declined to make any such direction when pressed by the revenue during the proceedings. The Court found that the Tribunal's direction for modifications consequential to the grant of registration did not automatically authorize the inclusion of additional income under section 16(3). The Court analyzed the Tribunal's jurisdiction under section 66(5) and section 33, emphasizing that the Tribunal's powers were limited to passing orders necessary to dispose of the case conformably to the judgment of the High Court in the reference. The Court concluded that the Tribunal did not intend to include the income under section 16(3) in the assessment based on its order.
3. The Court referred to relevant case laws to interpret the Tribunal's powers and the procedure to be followed in disposing of an appeal conformably to the judgment of the High Court. It was highlighted that the Tribunal's powers post a High Court judgment were subject to the nature of the High Court's decision. The Court clarified that the Tribunal's direction at the end of its order did not encompass the inclusion of income under section 16(3) in the assessment. The Court allowed the petition, directing the Commissioner to reconsider the matter afresh, emphasizing that the Tribunal's order did not provide for the inclusion of income under section 16(3).
-
1968 (2) TMI 19
Petitioner, an owner of non-agricultural land and buildings protests against the levy of what has been called additional wealth-tax, and odd made on her under clause (c) of Paragraph A read with rules 1 and 2 of Paragraph B of Part I of the Schedule to the Wealth-tax Act, 1957
-
1968 (2) TMI 18
Issues:
1. Whether the salary received by S. Trilok Singh should be treated as his personal income or income of the Hindu undivided family.
2. Whether the salary of Rs. 6,000 earned by S. Trilok Singh as managing director has been rightly held to be the income of the assessee family.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The case involved three connected proceedings under section 66 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, where the question was whether the salary of Rs. 6,000 received by S. Trilok Singh annually should be considered as his personal income or the income of the Hindu undivided family. The Income-tax Officer initially included the salary in the family's income for two assessment years, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal later held it to be the individual income of S. Trilok Singh. The Tribunal found that the joint family funds and the salary earned by S. Trilok Singh were not related as cause and effect. The court analyzed precedents and concluded that the salary was not the income of the Hindu undivided family, especially considering that S. Trilok Singh's appointment as managing director was not due to the investment of joint family funds in the company.
Issue 2:
In the subsequent assessment years, the Income-tax Officer again considered the salary as the income of the Hindu undivided family, but the Tribunal reversed this decision, stating that the remuneration should be assessed in the individual hands of S. Trilok Singh. The Tribunal found that his appointment as managing director was based on his personal qualifications in the transport service business, not due to joint family funds. The court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that no question of law arose in these cases, and dismissed the applications under section 66(2) of the Act. The court answered the question in Income-tax Reference No. 837 of 1963 in the negative, in favor of the assessee, and awarded costs. Similarly, in Income-tax Cases Nos. 65 and 66 of 1966, the applications were dismissed with costs assessed at Rs. 100 in each case.
-
1968 (2) TMI 17
Issues:
1. Liability of a former director for penalty levied on a company for non-payment of tax.
2. Compliance with procedural requirements for recovery proceedings under the Income-tax Act.
Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the issue of the liability of a former director of a private limited company for a penalty levied on the company for non-payment of tax. The petitioner argued that he should not be personally proceeded against for the penalty as he was not negligent or guilty of misfeasance. However, the court held that under section 179 of the Income-tax Act, every person who was a director of the company during the relevant years is jointly and severally liable for the tax, regardless of the Companies Act provisions. The petitioner failed to prove his lack of negligence or misfeasance, and his admission of joint liability further supported the court's decision. Therefore, the court concluded that the petitioner was liable for the penalty, and the recovery proceedings were justified.
2. The second issue involved the petitioner's argument regarding the procedural requirement under rule 2 of Part I in the Second Schedule to the Income-tax Act for recovery proceedings. The petitioner contended that the Recovery Officer did not issue a notice calling for payment within 15 days, which he claimed was mandatory and failure to comply would invalidate the recovery proceedings. However, the court found that the petitioner was aware of the recovery proceedings and even participated by requesting the Recovery Officer not to proceed with recovery. Drawing parallels with rule 22 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, the court held that if the judgment debtor is aware of the proceedings and participates, the lack of formal notice does not invalidate the proceedings. The court applied this principle to the recovery proceedings under the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the joint and several liability of the petitioner under section 179. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that the procedural requirement was not a ground to invalidate the recovery proceedings.
In conclusion, the judgment upheld the liability of the former director for the penalty levied on the company and justified the recovery proceedings despite the procedural argument raised by the petitioner.
-
1968 (2) TMI 16
Whether the revision petition was valid in regard to penal interest levied 18A(6) and (7) of the IT Act, 1922 on account of under-assessment of the estimated income for purposes of payment of advance tax - held that Section 30 which provides for appeals against specific orders makes no mention of section 18A(6) - hence the revision petition filed before the Commissioner was competent
-
1968 (2) TMI 15
Issues Involved:
1. Legislative Competence of Parliament to Enact the Gift-tax Act.
2. Whether the Properties Obtained by the Petitioners Constitute Gifts under the Gift-tax Act.
3. Validity of the Conversion of Self-acquired Property into Joint Family Property as a Gift.
4. Liability of the Donees to Pay Gift-tax and Compliance with Section 29 of the Gift-tax Act.
5. Constitutionality of Section 29 of the Gift-tax Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legislative Competence of Parliament to Enact the Gift-tax Act:
The petitioners contended that the Gift-tax Act, as it pertains to taxes on lands and buildings, falls within the scope of item 49 of the State List (List II) of the Constitution, and thus Parliament lacks legislative competence to enact such a law. The court rejected this contention, holding that the Gift-tax Act does not encroach upon the State Legislature's exclusive power under item 49 of List II. The court observed that the Gift-tax Act's pith and substance is to impose a tax on gifts inter vivos, which falls under Parliament's residuary powers as per Article 248 read with item 97 of List I of the Constitution. The court cited several judicial authorities, including the Supreme Court and various High Courts, which supported this view.
2. Whether the Properties Obtained by the Petitioners Constitute Gifts under the Gift-tax Act:
The petitioners argued that the properties obtained by them were not gifts within the meaning of section 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act, as there was no transfer of property under section 2(xxiv). The court held that the definitions of "gift" and "transfer of property" in the Gift-tax Act are exhaustive and should be construed strictly. The court referred to the Madras High Court's decision in M. K. Stremans v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which held that the merger of self-acquired properties with ancestral property and subsequent partition did not constitute a transfer of assets. However, the court disagreed with this view, stating that the conversion of self-acquired property into joint family property involves a transfer of rights and falls within the ambit of section 2(xxiv)(d) and section 4(d) of the Gift-tax Act.
3. Validity of the Conversion of Self-acquired Property into Joint Family Property as a Gift:
The court examined whether the conversion of self-acquired property into joint family property by late Srinivasa Rao constituted a valid gift. The court held that such a conversion involves the diminution of the father's rights and the conferment and enlargement of rights to others, thereby constituting a transfer of property. The court referred to the decision in Commissioner of Gift-tax v. C. Satyanarayanamurty, where it was held that such a transaction falls within the ambit of clause (d) of section 2(xxiv). The court also disagreed with the Mysore High Court's decision in Smt. Laxmibai Narayana Rao Nerlekar v. Commissioner of Gift-tax, which held that such a conversion does not constitute a transfer.
4. Liability of the Donees to Pay Gift-tax and Compliance with Section 29 of the Gift-tax Act:
The petitioners contended that they were not liable to pay the gift-tax and that they were not given notice of the proceedings before the demand was raised. The court held that the petitioners had notice of the proceedings and that the demand raised on the donees was in conformity with section 29 of the Act. The court stated that section 29 allows the Gift-tax Officer to recover the tax from the donees if the tax cannot be recovered from the donor. The court noted that one of the donees had informed the respondent of the donor's death and the lack of assets to meet the tax demand, leading to the apportionment of the tax among the donees.
5. Constitutionality of Section 29 of the Gift-tax Act:
The petitioners argued that section 29, in so far as it authorizes the recovery of gift-tax from the donees, is violative of article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution. The court rejected this contention, stating that the Government has a priority in respect of arrears of tax and that section 30 of the Act provides that gift-tax payable on immovable property shall be a first charge on that property. The court disagreed with the Calcutta High Court's decision in W. Rahman Tea and Lands Company v. Gift-tax Officer, which held section 29 to be unconstitutional. The court held that the donees, being deemed assessees under the Act, have access to the remedies provided under the Act, including the right of appeal.
Conclusion:
The writ petition was dismissed with costs, and the court held that the Gift-tax Act is within the legislative competence of Parliament, the conversion of self-acquired property into joint family property constitutes a gift, and the donees are liable to pay the gift-tax. The court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions and upheld the constitutionality of section 29 of the Gift-tax Act.
-
1968 (2) TMI 14
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the sum of Rs. 17,000 paid as municipal taxes was allowable as a deduction under section 12(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Preliminary Objection:
A preliminary objection was raised by the assessee's counsel, Mr. Mukherjee, arguing that the question did not arise out of the Tribunal's order. The court rejected this contention, stating that the question indeed arose from the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal had initially refused to refer the question, deeming it a factual matter, but the High Court directed the Tribunal to state the case. The court emphasized that the question was a legal one and arose directly from the Tribunal's order.
2. Deduction Under Section 12(2):
The core issue was whether the payment of Rs. 17,000 as municipal taxes could be deducted under section 12(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. Section 12(2) allows deductions for any expenditure incurred solely for the purpose of making or earning such income, profits, or gains, provided it is not capital expenditure or personal expenses. The court held that the municipal taxes were not incurred solely for earning the guarantee commission but were an incident of ownership of the property. The assessee's contention that the taxes were paid to earn the guarantee commission was rejected.
3. Mutual Exclusivity of Income Heads:
The court referred to the principle that different heads of income under the Income-tax Act are mutually exclusive, similar to the British Income Tax Schedules. The municipal taxes had already been partly deducted under the head "Property" (Section 9 of the Income-tax Act). Allowing the remaining taxes as a deduction under section 12(2) would contradict the exclusivity principle and lead to an absurd result where one section's limitation could be bypassed by another section.
4. Relevant Case Law:
The court cited several precedents to support its decision:
- Mitchell v. Ross: Emphasized that different income schedules are mutually exclusive.
- Fry v. Salisbury House Estate Ltd.: Asserted that income from property should be assessed only under the relevant schedule.
- United Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax: Highlighted the mutual exclusivity of income heads under the Indian Income-tax Act.
- Eastern Investment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax: Discussed permissible deductions for investment companies.
- Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maharani Janki Kuar Sahiba: Held that cess on forest produce was not deductible under section 12(2) as it was not incurred to earn the income.
5. Tribunal's Error:
The court found that the Tribunal erred in applying the Privy Council's decision in Probhat Chandra Barua v. King Emperor. The Privy Council case involved a different context where the liability was directly related to the zamindari income. In contrast, the municipal tax in the present case was a pre-existing liability due to property ownership and not incurred to earn the guarantee commission.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the sum of Rs. 17,000 was not allowable as a deduction under section 12(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference. Both judges agreed with this conclusion.
-
1968 (2) TMI 13
Question of law - When the point for determination is a mixed question of law and fact, while the finding of the Tribunal on the facts found is final, its decision as to the legal effect of those findings is a question of law which can be reviewed by the court
-
1968 (2) TMI 12
Trust - assessment of the trustees - applicability of section 21 of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 - held that Section 21 was applicable to the assessment of the trustees and they would also be capable of being treated as an individual and, consueqently as an assessable entity u/s 3 of the WT Act
-
1968 (2) TMI 11
Power of the ITO - power of the ITO has got to be exercised only during the pendency of the appeal before the AAC - Once that appellate authority disposes of the appeals, the power of the ITO to treat the petitioner as not being in default in respect of the relative amounts of tax in the appeals comes to an end
-
1968 (2) TMI 10
Issues:
Character of receipt from sale of immovable property for taxation as income or capital gain.
Analysis:
The judgment addressed the issue of whether the receipt from the sale of three immovable properties should be taxed as income or capital gain. The case involved a Hindu undivided family engaged in money-lending business, where the assets were divided between the assessee and his brother through partitions in 1957. The question was whether the assets sold constituted stock-in-trade of the money-lending business and if the amount was taxable as income. The Tribunal concluded that the assets were part of the money-lending business, considering the assessee's treatment of the properties in his business accounts and the use of income and sale proceeds in the money-lending activities.
The judgment highlighted that the determination of whether an asset is capital or stock-in-trade involves a mixed question of law and fact. It referenced a previous case law stating that when a member of a joint Hindu family receives a share at partition, it is considered capital unless treated as stock-in-trade. The conversion of a capital asset into stock-in-trade depends on the facts of each case, and there is no presumption regarding the character of the asset. The revenue must demonstrate facts supporting the treatment of a capital asset as stock-in-trade.
The court emphasized that the Tribunal's reliance on the assessee's use of income and sale proceeds in the money-lending business was justifiable evidence to infer the intention of treating the properties as stock-in-trade. Despite a possible different conclusion on appeal, the Tribunal's decision was supported by the assessee's actions and treatment of the properties. The Tribunal correctly applied the law and had sufficient material to support its conclusion, indicating no misdirection in its decision.
Ultimately, the court answered the question against the assessee, confirming that the receipt from the sale of immovable properties should be taxed as income. The judgment concluded with no costs awarded to either party, maintaining the decision in favor of taxation as income.
-
1968 (2) TMI 9
Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to set off unabsorbed depreciation of past years against the assessable income of the assessment year 1958-59.
2. Whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in law or acted without evidence in holding that the business of the applicant company in the assessment year 1958-59 was not the same as in the preceding years.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Entitlement to Set Off Unabsorbed Depreciation
The primary issue is whether the assessee is entitled to set off its unabsorbed depreciation of past years amounting to Rs. 73,404 against the assessable income of Rs. 80,210 earned in the assessment year 1958-59. The Income-tax Officer denied this claim, asserting that the business carried on during the assessment year was not the same as in previous years. This view was upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, which concluded that the business had materially changed due to the contract with Bhor Industries Limited and the subsequent sale of the assessee's old machinery.
Issue 2: Tribunal's Misdirection or Lack of Evidence
The second issue examines whether the Tribunal misdirected itself in law or acted without evidence in determining that the business in the assessment year 1958-59 was not the same as in preceding years. The Tribunal's conclusion was based on the contract terms and the operational changes, such as the sale of old machinery and the use of new machinery supplied by Bhor Industries Limited.
Analysis of Judgment:
On the Nature of Business:
The court analyzed the nature of the business carried on by the assessee before and after entering into the contract with Bhor Industries Limited. The assessee had been engaged in the business of processing cloth, including bleaching, dyeing, calendering, and printing, since its inception. The contract with Bhor Industries Limited required the assessee to process and finish P.V.C. leather cloth and plain book binding cloth using special machinery supplied by Bhor Industries Limited.
Contractual Terms:
The court scrutinized the terms of the contract, particularly clauses 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10. Clause 1 stipulated that the assessee would bear certain operational costs while Bhor Industries Limited would supply the necessary cloth, chemicals, and other raw materials. Clause 3 allowed Bhor Industries Limited to install special machinery at the assessee's factory. Clause 8 dealt with the consideration for processing and finishing, which was to be mutually agreed upon. Clause 9 required the assessee to maintain separate accounts for the materials supplied by Bhor Industries Limited.
Nature of Business Activity:
The court held that the essence of the assessee's business activity remained the same, i.e., processing and finishing cloth. The change in the method of carrying out the business, such as using machinery supplied by Bhor Industries Limited and processing materials provided by them, did not alter the fundamental nature of the business. The court emphasized that the essential nature of the activity (processing and finishing cloth) remained unchanged, even if the manner or method of carrying out the business had changed.
Tribunal's Conclusion:
The Tribunal had concluded that the business carried on by the assessee during the assessment year was different from the earlier years due to the sale of old machinery and the exclusive use of new machinery supplied by Bhor Industries Limited. However, the court disagreed with this view, stating that the business activity of processing cloth remained the same, and the change in machinery or materials did not constitute a different business.
Interpretation of Clause (b) of Proviso to Section 10(2)(vi):
The court also addressed the interpretation of clause (b) of the proviso to section 10(2)(vi) of the Indian Income-tax Act, which deals with unabsorbed depreciation. The court rejected the revenue's argument that the machinery in respect of which depreciation was claimed must still be in use in the assessment year. The court held that once depreciation was allowed in earlier years and remained unabsorbed, it could be carried forward and set off in subsequent years, regardless of whether the specific machinery was still in use.
Conclusion:
The court answered both questions in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the assessee. The assessee was entitled to set off its unabsorbed depreciation of past years against the assessable income of the assessment year 1958-59. The Tribunal had misdirected itself in law by concluding that the business carried on by the assessee in the assessment year was different from the preceding years. The assessee was awarded costs from the Commissioner.
-
1968 (2) TMI 8
Issues:
1. Inclusion of 1/5th share in immovable property in estate duty assessment.
2. Determination of whether the property was endowed or belonged to the Hindu undivided family.
3. Competency of the reference based on a question of law.
4. Consideration of facts by the Central Board of Revenue.
5. Use of an affidavit filed before the Central Board of Revenue.
6. Interpretation of circumstances supporting both parties' contentions.
7. Legal principles regarding the creation of an endowment.
8. Final decision on the inclusion of the property in the estate value.
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a reference under section 64 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, regarding the inclusion of a 1/5th share in certain immovable property in the estate of the deceased for assessment. The primary issue revolves around determining whether the property in question was endowed or part of the Hindu undivided family's assets. The deceased's son and widow were the accountable persons, contesting the estate duty assessment. The Central Board of Revenue referred the question of law to the court, seeking clarification on the property's classification.
The court addressed a preliminary objection regarding the competency of the reference, emphasizing the distinction between questions of fact and law. It concluded that the case raised a question of law, overruling the objection. The court also deliberated on the use of an affidavit filed before the Central Board of Revenue, deciding not to consider it extensively due to exceeding the permitted scope. The judgment analyzed the observations and findings of the Central Board of Revenue, highlighting conflicting circumstances supporting both parties' arguments.
Regarding the property's classification, the court considered various factors, including historical records, income utilization, and legal principles of endowment creation. It noted discrepancies in the revenue's reliance on certain circumstances and supported the assessee's contention based on substantial evidence. The judgment emphasized that no deed of dedication was necessary to establish an endowment, citing relevant legal principles from Hindu Law. Ultimately, the court concluded that the inclusion of the property share in the estate value was unjustified in law, ruling in favor of the accountable persons.
In conclusion, the court answered the reference question negatively, directing the Controller of Estate Duty to reimburse the costs to the accountable persons. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal and factual aspects surrounding the property's classification and estate duty assessment, ensuring a comprehensive examination of the issues involved.
-
1968 (2) TMI 7
Shares in a company are purchased as a part of the transaction of acquiring the managing agency of the company - any profit or loss resulting from the purchase or sale of such shares cannot be treated as a revenue loss or profit, but must be treated as a profit or loss on capital account
-
1968 (2) TMI 6
Issues:
1. Taxability of salary and allowances received by B. N. Talwar under an agreement with Allied Motors Private Ltd. in the hands of the Hindu undivided family.
The High Court of Allahabad was asked to determine whether the salary and allowances received by B. N. Talwar for the assessment years 1958-59, 1959-60, and 1960-61, totaling Rs. 38,918, Rs. 35,184, and Rs. 38,300 respectively, under an agreement with Allied Motors Private Ltd. should be assessed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family consisting of B. N. Talwar and his sons. The case involved the establishment of whether the remuneration was earned by detriment to the Hindu undivided family estate or without any aid or assistance from the family property.
The court examined the history of the family's business, starting with the father's settlement of assets among his sons and their subsequent partnership in the automobile business. B. N. Talwar later acquired shares in Allied Motors Ltd. and entered into an agreement with the company in 1955, appointing him as deputy chairman with specific remuneration terms. The court considered the connection between the family's investment in the company and B. N. Talwar's appointment, emphasizing the absence of a requirement for shareholding for directorship when he was initially appointed. The subsequent amendment requiring shareholding for directors was found not to impact the initial appointment based on personal qualifications.
The court relied on established principles of Hindu law regarding the taxation of remuneration received by a karta or coparcener of a Hindu undivided family in connection with their position in a company. It distinguished cases where remuneration was linked to family funds invested in the company versus cases where the appointment was based on personal qualifications. In this case, the court found that the salary and allowances received by B. N. Talwar were not earned to the detriment of the family estate, as there was no real connection between the family's investment in the company and B. N. Talwar's appointment or remuneration.
Consequently, the court held that the salary and allowances received by B. N. Talwar under the agreement with Allied Motors Private Ltd. constituted his individual income and could not be taxed in the hands of the Hindu undivided family. The court answered the question referred by the Tribunal in the negative, ruling in favor of the assessee. The assessee was awarded costs and counsel fees as assessed by the court.
-
1968 (2) TMI 5
Whether in computing the market value of the share, the assessee is entitled to the deduction of a sum by way of brokerage commission and s.s. 5(1)(viii) and 5(1)(xv) of the WT Act, the assessee is entitled to the exclusion of the value of jewellery from the computation of his total wealth - Held, no
-
1968 (2) TMI 4
Trust - shares of the persons on whose behalf the trustees under the two trust deeds were holding the assets were determinate and known - s. 21(4) not applicable - each of the beneficiaries to the extent of his share would be liable to be assessed
-
1968 (2) TMI 3
Assessee is an individual - One T had taken on long lease certain open plots of land - owner of these plots had mortgaged them with the ABC Bank Ltd. but that bank went into liquidation and the plots were acquired by the assessee from the liquidator of the bank - Tribunal was not right in holding that the assessee`s case falls u/s 34(1)(a)
-
1968 (2) TMI 2
Insurance Business - Whether there was any evidence to support the findings that the house property assets were at all times acquired in the course of the petitioner company's business and not as part of its any allied non insurance business - Held, yes
-
1968 (2) TMI 1
Whether the assessee`s dwelling house was exempted from wealth-tax u/s 5(1)(iv) of the WT Act, 1957, as it was situated at a distance of more than five miles from a central point of the municipality whose population exceeded ten thousand - Held, no
|
9911796707
