|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 104 Records
-
1973 (8) TMI 44
Issues:
Interpretation of section 4(c) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958 regarding writing off a debt as a gift.
Analysis:
The case involved a question regarding the interpretation of section 4(c) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958, concerning the writing off of a debt by an assessee in his books of account. The central issue was whether the writing off of a debt due from the assessee's brother amounted to a gift liable to be assessed under the Act. The court emphasized the importance of determining whether there was an abandonment of the debt, as claimed by the revenue. The court examined the legal meaning of "abandonment," which requires both an intention to abandon and an overt act or failure to act indicating that the owner no longer claims any interest in the debt. The court highlighted that the intention to abandon must be clear and absolute, without reference to any specific person or purpose.
The court analyzed the facts of the case, where a significant sum was due to the assessee from his brother, who denied liability when a lawyer's notice was issued. Subsequently, the assessee wrote off the debt in his accounts and claimed it as a bad debt for income tax purposes. However, the Income-tax Officer's notice to the brother revealed that he admitted owing the amount, contradicting his earlier denial. The court found that the writing off was a pretense for a specific purpose that ultimately failed, indicating no absolute intention to give up the debt. The court concluded that there was no abandonment of the debt, leading to a ruling in favor of the assessee against the department.
Furthermore, the court distinguished the present case from a previous Supreme Court ruling in Goli Eswariah v. Commissioner of Gift-tax, emphasizing that the interpretation of section 4(c) differs from the provision discussed in the Supreme Court case. The court clarified that the case at hand did not involve a bilateral transaction to diminish the value of property, as in the Supreme Court ruling, but rather an attempt by the assessee to portray the debt as irrecoverable. Ultimately, the court answered the question in favor of the assessee, directing each party to bear their respective costs and sending a copy of the judgment to the Appellate Tribunal as required by the Gift-tax Act, 1958.
In conclusion, the court's analysis focused on the crucial distinction between abandonment of a debt and a mere attempt to declare it as irrecoverable, leading to a ruling in favor of the assessee under section 4(c) of the Gift-tax Act, 1958.
-
1973 (8) TMI 43
Issues:
Interpretation of Section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 regarding the set-off of losses carried forward from earlier years against current year's profits.
Analysis:
The case involved a query on whether the assessee was entitled to set off losses carried forward from earlier years under clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of section 24 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The assessee, a company engaged in manufacturing woollen goods, faced losses in its manufacturing business and subsequently discontinued the manufacturing operations. The Income-tax Officer treated these losses as business losses totaling Rs. 4,03,843. The assessee sought to set off these losses against its business profits in the subsequent assessment years. However, the departmental authorities and the Tribunal denied the set-off, stating that since the assessee had ceased the business that incurred the losses, it was not entitled to set off those losses against other business income. The court examined Section 24(2) which allows for the carry-forward of losses under specific conditions. It was noted that sub-section (2) emphasizes that losses can only be carried forward and set off against profits in the following years if the business, in which the loss was incurred, continued to exist. The court rejected the argument that losses could be carried forward under sub-clause (iii) even if they could not be set off in the immediate following year. The court emphasized that the fundamental principle is that business losses can only be carried forward and adjusted against profits in subsequent years if the business continues to operate.
The court highlighted that under Section 24(1), an assessee can set off losses against income from other heads in the same year. Sub-section (2) outlines the conditions for carrying forward losses to subsequent years for set-off. It specifies that if the business that incurred the loss is not continued in the following year, the loss cannot be carried forward and set off against profits of that year. The court clarified that sub-clause (iii) allows for the carry-forward of losses only if they could not be fully set off under sub-clauses (i) and (ii), and does not permit carrying forward losses from a business that is no longer operational. Therefore, in this case, as the business had ceased to exist, the losses from that business could not be carried forward and set off against other business income in subsequent years.
In conclusion, the court answered the question in the affirmative, ruling against the assessee's claim for set-off of losses carried forward from earlier years. The court awarded costs to the department and emphasized that business losses can only be carried forward and set off against profits in subsequent years if the business continues to operate, as per the provisions of Section 24(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
-
1973 (8) TMI 42
Issues:
1. Validity of demands raised by the Income-tax Officer for interest payable by the assessee under sections 139 and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax in dealing with interest liabilities.
3. Contention regarding the settlement fixing the entire liability of the assessee under the Act and its impact on interest payments.
4. Interpretation of the settlement terms and its effect on the demand of interest by the Income-tax Officer.
5. Whether the Commissioner's order under section 264 of the Act was final and not open to dispute.
Analysis:
The judgment involves four applications under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking writs of certiorari to quash demands raised by the Income-tax Officer for interest payable by the assessee under sections 139 and 217 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and orders in revision passed under section 264(1) of the Act. The settlement between the Commissioner and the assessee quantified the income to be assessed and the penalty under section 271 of the Act but did not address the liability for interest under sections 139 and 217. The Commissioner's order directed the Income-tax Officer to recompute interest under section 217 but did not interfere with the demand under section 139. The assessee contended that the settlement fixed the entire liability, precluding further demands for interest. The revenue argued that interest is a statutory liability calculated at the time of regular assessment, not covered by the settlement. The court held that the settlement did not exempt the assessee from interest payments as it was not addressed in the agreement.
The court addressed the jurisdiction of the Commissioner in dealing with interest liabilities. It was argued that the Commissioner's focus was on income and penalty under section 271, not interest. The court found that the Commissioner rightly dealt with income and penalty under the settlement, and non-mention of interest did not waive the liability. The settlement did not bar the subsequent claim of interest, which is a statutory obligation. The court rejected the contention that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to consider interest matters.
The judgment also discussed the validity of demands raised by the Income-tax Officer for interest under sections 139 and 217. The court held that the settlement did not absolve the assessee from interest payments, as interest is to be calculated at the time of regular assessment, not during settlement negotiations. The settlement terms focusing on income and penalty did not waive the liability for interest, which is a statutory requirement.
Regarding the finality of the Commissioner's order under section 264, the court held that it was a judicial order, allowing the writ petitions to be maintainable. The court dismissed the petitions, concluding that the settlement did not relieve the assessee from the obligation to pay interest under the Income-tax Act.
-
1973 (8) TMI 41
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 23A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to the company for the assessment year 1954-55.
2. Inclusion of Rs. 1,01,189 in the company's income for the assessment year 1954-55.
3. Determination of commercial profits and the reasonableness of non-declaration of dividends.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 23A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922:
The primary legal question was whether Section 23A(1) applied to the company for the assessment year 1954-55. Section 23A(1) mandates that if a company distributes less than 60% of its assessable income as dividends, the Income-tax Officer can deem the undistributed portion as distributed among shareholders unless the smallness of profits or losses in earlier years justifies the non-distribution.
2. Inclusion of Rs. 1,01,189 in the Company's Income:
The company's accounts, maintained on a mercantile basis, did not include Rs. 1,01,189 as income for the year ending March 31, 1954, due to a dispute with the Government of Bombay over the amount receivable. The Income-tax Officer included this amount in the company's income, arguing that it accrued during the relevant accounting year. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld this inclusion, stating that under the mercantile system, income accrues when the right to receive it arises, irrespective of actual receipt.
3. Determination of Commercial Profits and Reasonableness of Non-Declaration of Dividends:
The Tribunal and the lower authorities considered the Rs. 1,01,189 as part of the commercial profits, thus making the non-declaration of dividends unreasonable. However, the company argued that even if this amount was included, the financial position reflected in the balance-sheet and profit and loss account did not justify declaring dividends. The company had significant liabilities and doubtful debts, making any dividend declaration imprudent.
Judgment:
The court, considering the second contention, found it unnecessary to delve deeply into the first contention about the accrual of Rs. 1,01,189. The court noted that even if this amount was included in the commercial profits, the financial position of the company, as reflected in the balance-sheet and profit and loss account, did not support the declaration of dividends.
The court emphasized the following points:
- The company's paid-up capital was Rs. 1,96,000, while its liabilities exceeded Rs. 38 lakhs, creating an equity-debt ratio of 1:19.
- The balance-sheet showed several doubtful debts and loans amounting to Rs. 2,28,277, indicating that the company's capital was effectively eroded.
- The company's financial position, with significant liabilities and doubtful assets, made any dividend declaration unreasonable and imprudent.
The court cited several precedents, including the Supreme Court's observations in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gangadhar Banerjee & Co. (P.) Ltd., emphasizing that the Income-tax Officer must consider the commercial profits and the company's overall financial position from a businessman's perspective.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the provisions of Section 23A were not attracted in this case. The question referred was answered in the negative, favoring the assessee. The revenue was directed to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee-company.
Question answered in the negative.
-
1973 (8) TMI 40
Issues:
1. Assessment of income-tax status of an individual as a Hindu undivided family.
2. Claim of partial partition in family business.
3. Validity of deed of partition.
4. Continuation of a member in a joint family post-partition.
5. Department's resistance to partial partition based on the allotment of share to an individual not entitled.
Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a consolidated reference for the assessment years 1965-66 and 1966-67 under section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The primary issue revolves around the assessment of the assessee's income-tax status from an individual to a Hindu undivided family.
2. The assessee claimed a partial partition in the family business carried out in the name of Munnilal and Company, with the total capital divided among family members. The claim was supported by entries in the books of accounts and a deed of partition dated 1st April, 1965. The Income-tax Officer initially rejected the claim, citing discrepancies in the deed. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal accepted the claim, ruling in favor of the assessee.
3. The department contended that the deed of partition was fictitious due to the date of the stamp paper being later than the date of execution. The assessee explained that the discrepancy was a typing error, which was accepted by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal as a genuine mistake. The court upheld this finding as a factual determination, stating no legal question arose from it.
4. The additional question raised by the Commissioner of Income-tax concerned the continued membership of an individual in the joint family post a complete partition in 1952. The Tribunal found that the acceptance of maintenance by the individual did not signify a relinquishment of her share. The court held that the department lacked the authority to declare the partition void ab initio based on the allotment of shares to unauthorized individuals.
5. The department's resistance to the partial partition based on the allotment of a share to an individual not entitled to it was dismissed by the court. The court declined to call for a reference on this issue, emphasizing that even if the department's contention was accepted, it would not impact the validity of the partial partition carried out by the assessee.
In conclusion, the court upheld the validity of the partial partition claimed by the assessee and dismissed the department's contentions regarding the deed of partition and the continuation of a member in the joint family post-partition.
-
1973 (8) TMI 39
Issues:
- Application for writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ against the Income-tax Officer
- Compliance with section 151(2) requirements for issuing notice under section 148
- Satisfaction of the Commissioner for initiating proceedings under section 148
Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an application seeking a writ of prohibition or another suitable writ against the Income-tax Officer to restrain further proceedings based on a notice issued for reassessment of income for the assessment year 1965-66. The main contention raised was the alleged non-compliance with the requirements of section 151(2) concerning the issuance of a notice under section 148. It was argued that the Income-tax Officer did not provide reasons for deeming it a fit case for issuing the notice, and there was doubt regarding the Commissioner's satisfaction in this regard.
Upon examination of the reasons provided by the Income-tax Officer for initiating proceedings under section 147, the court found that the reasons were adequately recorded. The reasons included discrepancies in turnover figures, penalties levied by the sales tax department, and suspicions of turnover suppression by the assessee. The court distinguished this case from a previous Supreme Court ruling where vague reasons were deemed insufficient. In this instance, the court found the Income-tax Officer's grounds for reassessment to be valid and based on tangible evidence.
Another argument raised was the Commissioner's satisfaction in approving the notice under section 148. While it was contended that the Commissioner merely marked "Yes" without proper consideration, the court held that the Commissioner's approval was not merely a mechanical act. The court emphasized that although the Act did not mandate recording reasons for satisfaction, providing brief justification by the Commissioner would enhance transparency and confidence in the process.
Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition but highlighted that the decision did not prevent the petitioner from raising substantive issues in the pending appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The judgment underscored the importance of procedural compliance and transparency in tax reassessment proceedings to uphold the integrity of the process and maintain trust in administrative decisions.
-
1973 (8) TMI 38
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of treating the sum of Rs. 45,900 as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources.
2. Application and interpretation of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
3. Evaluation of the assessee's explanation regarding the cash credits.
4. Examination of relevant case law and its applicability.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Justification of treating the sum of Rs. 45,900 as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources:
The primary issue was whether the Appellate Tribunal was justified in treating Rs. 45,900 as the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) found various cash credits in the names of the partners totaling Rs. 45,900. The assessee claimed these were from the partners' income, but could not explain the source. The ITO added these amounts to the firm's income, a decision upheld by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal, primarily under Section 68 of the Act.
2. Application and interpretation of Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
Section 68 states that if any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee for any previous year, and the assessee offers no satisfactory explanation about the nature and source, the sum may be charged to income-tax as the income of the assessee for that previous year. The Tribunal upheld the addition under Section 68, as the explanation provided by the assessee was not satisfactory. The court noted that Section 68 essentially codified pre-existing principles, with minor clarifications regarding the timing and nature of cash credits.
3. Evaluation of the assessee's explanation regarding the cash credits:
The assessee argued that the cash credits were from the partners' income, but failed to provide satisfactory evidence. The ITO rejected the explanation based on two grounds: (i) the firm maintained double sets of books in a previous year, suggesting undisclosed profits, and (ii) the deposits matched the partners' share proportions, indicating it was the firm's income divided among partners. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner found no evidence that the partners actually deposited the money and noted the firm had no need for such deposits. The Tribunal found the explanation unsatisfactory and upheld the addition.
4. Examination of relevant case law and its applicability:
The assessee cited several cases arguing that the addition was based on surmises and conjectures. However, the court distinguished these cases based on facts and principles. For instance:
- In Narayandas Kedarnath v. Commissioner of Income-tax, it was known that partners deposited the amount, unlike the present case.
- In Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram v. Commissioner of Income-tax, the Supreme Court found the Tribunal's rejection of the explanation perverse due to lack of evidence, but in the present case, the rejection was based on substantial evidence.
- The court also referred to Govindarajulu Mudaliar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, which supports the inference that unexplained cash credits can be treated as income.
The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision was reasonable and based on relevant materials. The explanation provided by the assessee was found unsatisfactory, and the addition of Rs. 45,900 to the firm's income was justified.
Conclusion:
The High Court answered the question of law in the affirmative, holding that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in treating the sum of Rs. 45,900 as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. The assessee was ordered to pay the costs of the reference, with a hearing fee of Rs. 150.
-
1973 (8) TMI 37
Issues:
1. Whether penalty could be imposed under section 273(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for default under section 18A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
Detailed Analysis:
The High Court of Rajasthan was presented with a question regarding the imposition of penalties under the Income-tax Act, 1961, for defaults under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The case involved two Hindu undivided families resulting from a partial partition. The assessees failed to comply with the provisions of section 18A(3) of the old Act by not submitting the estimate of advance tax before the due date. Penalties were imposed by the Income-tax Officer, which were partially reduced on appeal. The assessees challenged the penalties before the Tribunal on the grounds that the new Act's provisions did not apply to the relevant assessment years and that the defaults were minor. The Tribunal, relying on various precedents, found that the penalties imposed were not justified and should be refunded. The Commissioner of Income-tax then approached the High Court, seeking a decision on the matter.
The High Court considered the conflicting judicial opinions on the issue but noted that the Supreme Court had authoritatively resolved similar matters in other cases. Referring to the decisions in Jain Brothers v. Union of India and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Singh Engineering Works P. Ltd., the High Court highlighted that penal provisions of the new Act applied to assessments completed after a certain date. The Supreme Court clarified that penalties could be imposed under the new Act for defaults made under the old Act, provided the assessments were completed after the new Act came into force. The High Court emphasized that the crucial date for penalty imposition was the completion of assessment. The Court also noted that previous decisions by the Tribunal were overruled by the Supreme Court in light of the new interpretations.
In light of the Supreme Court's authoritative decisions, the High Court held that penalties could indeed be imposed under section 273(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for defaults under section 18A(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The Court rejected the Tribunal's findings and ruled in favor of the revenue department. The High Court's decision was based on the clear provisions of the law and the applicability of penalties under the new Act to assessments completed after a specified date. No costs were awarded in the case.
-
1973 (8) TMI 36
Issues:
Whether penalty could be legally leviable in reassessment proceedings for the original default of not filing the return?
Analysis:
The case involved an individual assessee who did not file returns for the assessment years 1955-56, 1957-58, and 1960-61 under section 22(1). The Income-tax Officer initiated proceedings for reopening assessments under section 147 upon discovering undisclosed income from foreign firms. The reassessments under section 147 led to the issuance of penalties under section 271(1)(a) for the default of not filing returns under section 22(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner initially set aside the penalties, arguing that penalties for the original default could not be levied in proceedings under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, however, held that the original default of not filing returns could be penalized in reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized that the addition of the words "as the case may be" in section 271(1)(a) did not alter the position from the 1922 Act. The High Court interpreted the clause in section 271(1)(a) and disagreed with the assessee's argument, holding that penalties could be imposed for the original default in reassessment proceedings.
Additionally, the High Court referred to a similar decision by the Rajasthan High Court and emphasized the importance of filing returns under section 139(1) within the specified time, without waiting for notices under section 139(2). The High Court further cited decisions from the Supreme Court and other High Courts to support the imposition of penalties for non-compliance with notice requirements. The Court concluded that penalties could be imposed in reassessment proceedings for the original default of not filing returns.
Therefore, the High Court answered the question in the affirmative, ruling against the assessee and directing them to pay the costs of the reference to the Commissioner of Income-tax. The judgment highlighted the legal interpretation of penalty provisions and affirmed the authority of the Income-tax Officer to penalize original defaults in reassessment proceedings.
Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the imposition of penalties in reassessment proceedings for the original default of not filing returns under section 22(1). The judgment clarified the interpretation of penalty provisions under the Income-tax Act, emphasizing the obligation of assessees to file returns within the specified timelines. The decision aligned with previous judicial interpretations and affirmed the authority of the Income-tax Officer to penalize non-compliance with return filing requirements in reassessment proceedings.
-
1973 (8) TMI 35
Issues:
1. Interpretation of section 23A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 regarding the declaration of dividends by a company.
2. Consideration of future capital expenses while determining the reasonableness of not declaring dividends.
3. Whether the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in not requiring the company to pay super-tax under section 23A.
Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Allahabad involved a consolidated reference made by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal concerning three assessment years under section 66(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The primary issue revolved around the interpretation of section 23A, which mandates the declaration of dividends by a company based on its profits. In this case, the company had distributable surplus but did not pay any dividends to its shareholders. The Tribunal held that due to the smallness of profits and future capital requirements for purchasing machinery and constructing a building, it was reasonable for the company not to declare dividends. The Tribunal's decision was challenged, leading to the question of whether the company was justified in not declaring dividends.
Regarding the consideration of future capital expenses, the Court examined whether it was appropriate for the Tribunal to factor in such expenses while determining the reasonableness of not declaring dividends. It was argued that capital expenses should not be taken into account when assessing the commercial profits available for dividend distribution. However, the Court clarified that if a company legitimately required funds for capital expenses, diverting profits for such purposes instead of distributing dividends could be considered reasonable.
Ultimately, the Court found that there was no dispute over the distributable surplus and the company's need for significant funds for capital investments. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's reasoning that it was not unreasonable for the company to forego dividends in light of its future capital requirements. Therefore, the Tribunal's decision was upheld, and the company was not required to pay super-tax under section 23A. The Court ruled in favor of the assessee, emphasizing that the Tribunal's findings were based on relevant considerations and not vitiated in any manner. The question posed was answered in the affirmative, granting the assessee costs amounting to Rs. 200.
-
1973 (8) TMI 34
Issues:
1. Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 justified?
Detailed Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the High Court of Allahabad pertains to a reference made under section 256(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, referred the question of whether the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is justified in the given circumstances. The case involved a partnership firm that made a voluntary disclosure of concealed income amounting to Rs. 6 lakhs after a search revealed discrepancies in the accounts. The firm requested that the penalty, if any, should be levied on a nominal ground only, leaving the amount to be decided later. The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax subsequently levied penalties for various assessment years, which were reduced by the Tribunal to the minimum imposable under the law. The firm contended that no penalty should be imposed due to the voluntary disclosure, but the court held that such disclosure does not absolve the assessee from penalty, although it can be a mitigating factor considered by the tax authorities.
The Court emphasized that the voluntary disclosure of concealed income does not automatically exempt the assessee from penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. The law does not mandate such exemption, and the imposition of penalty is based on statutory provisions. The firm's request for a nominal penalty or deferral of penalty determination was seen as an acknowledgment of its liability to penalty. The Tribunal had already reduced the penalty to the minimum allowed under the law, and there was no basis for further reduction as the firm had admitted its liability to penalty. Therefore, the Tribunal could not grant additional relief to the assessee in this regard.
Furthermore, the firm's argument that the disclosed sum of Rs. 6 lakhs was not actual income but offered for taxation to avoid harassment was rejected by the Court. The firm's own application clearly stated that the undisclosed income was earned and kept outside the account books, making it liable for taxation. The Court ruled in favor of the department, affirming the justification for the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The department was awarded costs amounting to Rs. 200 in the case.
-
1973 (8) TMI 33
" Whether the date of service of the assessment order on the petitioner should be May 19, 1966, or May 22, 1966? " - The short question for consideration is whether Basudeb had any authority to receive the notice on behalf of the petitioner on May 19, 1966. It is the duty of the department to establish that service was made either on the assessee himself or on somebody duty authorised by him to receive such notice. The petitioner has been throughout contending that though Basudeb is a partner in one of the firms in which the petitioner is a partner he had no authority to receive the assessment order on his behalf. - In the absence of any evidence that Basudeb had due authority on behalf of the petitioner to receive summons, the question of law must be answered in favour of the petitioner by saying that the service of the assessment order on the petitioner was on May 22, 1966, and not on May 19, 1966.
-
1973 (8) TMI 32
Levy of penalty under section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - explanation regarding cash credits in the accounts was rejected and the amounts were assessed as assessee's income - Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of section 28(1)(c) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, applied to the applicant - Our answer to the question referred is in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue
-
1973 (8) TMI 31
" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,03,255 paid by the assessee for the purchase of loom hours was revenue expenditure and hence deductible under section 10(2)(xv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? " - question, has to be answered in the negative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee
-
1973 (8) TMI 30
(1) Whether, section 143 is a substantive section or it is merely a procedural section ? (2) Whether section 143 is directory or mandatory; (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in confirming the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner whereby the assessment was only set aside for being made de novo but was not annulled ?
-
1973 (8) TMI 29
"Whether Appellate Tribunal was right in excluding the income from property from the total income from the income-tax assessment for the assessment year 1962-63 and the value of this property for wealth-tax purposes for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963- 64 respectively ? " - Whether individual property can be converted into that of joint family by a declaration in will - If the assessee's intention was to treat his individual property as joint family property in future, it has to be given effect to and the property must be treated as having being merged with the joint family property - Question answered in the affirmative
-
1973 (8) TMI 28
When penalty is levied on the registered firm treating it as unregistered, whether penalty for same offence can be levied on the partners – held that penalty for concealment of income cannot be levied, once in the hands of the firm and again in the hands of its partners.
-
1973 (8) TMI 27
Kerala Agricultural Income Tax Act, 1950 - " 1. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in holding that the proceedings initiated under section 35 are ab initio void ? 2. Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Agricultural Income-tax Officer was legally bound to communicate the original order of assessment recording the case ? " - We answer the first question in the negative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. We answer the second question also in the negative. Since the assessee had not been prejudiced in any manner by the nil proceedings recorded by the Agricultural Income-tax Officer on December 10, 1967, we do not think there was any obligation on the part of the Agricultural Income-tax Officer to have communicated that order to the assessee though even in such cases it is desirable to do so
-
1973 (8) TMI 26
Carry Forward and Set Off - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm was entitled to the set-off of speculation loss of Rs. 26,947 determined for the assessment year 1962-63, against speculation profit made in the year under reference ? " - we answer the question referred to us in each of these four references in the negative and against the assessee
-
1973 (8) TMI 25
Reassessment notice issued without the satisfaction of the commissioner - Validity of reassessment notice issued under section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 - Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment made on the assessee under section 34 was not valid in law ?
|
9911796707
