Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1975 1975 (8) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 61 to 80 of 118 Records

• 1975 (8) TMI 58
  
  Issues:
  Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 imposed on two partners for not declaring share income from a firm in their assessment for the year 1968-69. The main issue is whether the omission to declare the income was deliberate concealment or a bona fide mistake.
  
  Analysis:
  The appeals were consolidated as common contentions were involved, and both parties agreed that the acts in each case were similar. The appeals challenged the penalty imposed on the partners for not declaring their share income from a firm in their assessment for the year 1968-69. The partners, Jitendra Kumar and Anil Kumar, did not show their share of income from the firm in their returns. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) held that the omission was deliberate and imposed penalties equal to the alleged concealed income.
  
  The partners contended that the omission was a bona fide mistake due to the newly formed nature of the firm and the belief that the accounts would be closed after twelve months. They argued that their substantial income history made it unlikely they would deliberately conceal a small amount. The Departmental Representative supported the ITO's decision, emphasizing the failure to disclose partnership details in the return.
  
  The Tribunal found that the omission was a bona fide mistake, considering the partners' substantial income history and the circumstances of the newly formed firm. Referring to legal precedent, the Tribunal held that penalty should not be imposed for a technical or venial breach or where the offender believed they were not liable to act as prescribed. Consequently, the penalties under section 271(1)(c) were deemed not leviable, and the appeals were allowed.
  
  In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the partners, determining that there was no deliberate concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The penalties were deleted based on the finding that the omission was a result of a bona fide mistake.

  ---

• 1975 (8) TMI 57
  
  Issues:
  1. Ownership of property bearing No. C-520 Defence Colony, New Delhi - whether it belongs to the respondent assessee Smt. Amrit Kaur or to her son Shri Dilsher Singh.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The six appeals by the Revenue involved a common issue regarding the ownership of property No. C-520 Defence Colony, New Delhi, for the assessment years 1966-67 to 1971-72. Smt. Amrit Kaur, the respondent assessee, claimed that the property belonged to her son Shri Dilsher Singh from her first marriage. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) initially accepted this claim, but later, in the assessment year 1966-67, concluded that since there was no registered transfer of the property to her son, Smt. Amrit Kaur remained the owner, and the income should be assessed in her hands.
  
  The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) reviewed the case and determined that on Smt. Amrit Kaur's remarriage, she forfeited her interest in the property, which then vested in her son Dilsher Singh. The AAC relied on legal principles and documents to support this conclusion, directing the ITO to exclude the property income from Smt. Amrit Kaur's total income for all relevant assessment years. The Revenue appealed this decision.
  
  The main contention on behalf of the Revenue was that Smt. Amrit Kaur did not inherit the property, and as the property was not transferred by a registered deed to her son, she remained the full owner. The Revenue argued that Smt. Amrit Kaur's actions, such as writing to the Ministry of Rehabilitation for transfer, did not constitute a legal transfer. The Revenue cited legal precedent to support their argument.
  
  On the other hand, the assessee argued that the property was allotted to Smt. Amrit Kaur as a widow of her first husband, and the construction was financed from funds inherited from her late husband. The assessee contended that on her remarriage, she forfeited her rights in the property, which then vested in her son as per legal provisions. The assessee presented legal interpretations and documents to support this position.
  
  The Tribunal carefully analyzed the facts and legal aspects of the case. It noted that the property was allotted to Smt. Amrit Kaur as a widow and that her rights in the property ceased upon remarriage, transferring to her son by operation of law. The Tribunal referred to relevant legal provisions and precedents to support its decision. Considering all aspects, the Tribunal upheld the AAC's decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeals.

  ---

• 1975 (8) TMI 56
  
  The ITAT Delhi-A allowed the appeal by the assessee against the addition of Rs. 10,000 for low yield of Dana. The AAC confirmed the addition but noted an error in the yield calculation. The ITAT found that the addition was not justified, considering the quality of groundnut and allowed the appeal, deleting the sustained addition.

  ---

• 1975 (8) TMI 55
  
  Issues:
  1. Disallowance of excessive remuneration to the managing director under section 40(c) for two assessment years.
  2. Disallowance of certain expenses treated as entertainment expenses under section 37(2).
  
  Analysis:
  1. The judgment dealt with the disallowance of excessive remuneration paid to the managing director of a limited company under section 40(c) for two assessment years. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed a portion of the remuneration, considering it excessive. On appeal, the addition was confirmed for one year but reduced for the next year. The company argued that the remuneration was reasonable, highlighting the managing director's qualifications and his role in securing business for the company. The Appellate Tribunal noted that the burden of proof regarding the reasonableness of the remuneration lies with the company. The Tribunal emphasized the need for the ITO to provide comparative cases to determine the market value of services rendered by the managing director. As the ITO failed to substantiate the disallowance with relevant material, the Tribunal deleted the additions for both years, allowing the company's claim. However, the Tribunal clarified that the ITO could determine market value with reference to comparable cases in future years.
  
  2. The judgment also addressed the disallowance of certain expenses treated as entertainment expenses under section 37(2). The expenses were incurred when a representative of the shipping line visited the company, including hotel stays and other costs. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the disallowance, stating that expenses in the nature of entertainment are not deductible under section 37(2), despite being business-related. The Tribunal found the nature of the expenses to be entertainment-related and upheld the disallowance for both years. Additionally, a similar disallowance was made for crew expenses in one of the years, which was also upheld. As a result, the appeals were partly allowed, with the disallowances of excessive remuneration and entertainment expenses being upheld.

  ---

• 1975 (8) TMI 54
  
  The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT COCHIN involved the assessability of profit on a kuri or chitty amounting to Rs. 5,147. The Tribunal held that the profit was not assessable as it did not have a nexus with the assessee's business activities. The appeal was allowed.

  ---

• 1975 (8) TMI 53
  
  The appeals were against the penalty under s. 271(1)(a) for the asst. yrs. 1967-68 and 1968-69 for a firm. The delay in filing returns was due to heavy work and auditing volume, not conscious disregard. No evidence of application for extension of time. Appeals allowed.

  ---

• 1975 (8) TMI 52
  
  The Appellate Tribunal ITAT Cochin allowed the deduction of Rs. 1,25,215 provision for gratuity under the Kerala Industrial Employees Payment of Gratuity Act, 1970. The Kerala High Court clarified that gratuity liability is incurred yearly, not just after 5 years of service. However, a discounted valuation is necessary. The matter is remitted back to the ITO for revised valuation. The Departmental appeal is partly allowed.

  ---

• 1975 (8) TMI 51
  
  The petitioner challenged an order imposing duty for manufacture and removal of excisable goods without proper accounts. The High Court directed a stay on the demand pending disposal of the revisional application. The Rule was made absolute with liberty to move again if aggrieved by the revisional order. No costs were awarded.

  ---

• 1975 (8) TMI 50
  

  Whether the presumption contained in Section 123 of the Act, corresponding to Section 178A of the Sea Customs Act, 1878, or, any other provision of law would place the onus of proving innocent possession of these goods upon the appellant?

  Held that:- The very appearance of the goods and the manner in which they were packed indicated that they were newly manufactured and brought into this country very recently from another country. The inscriptions on them and writing on the boxes were part of the state in which the goods in unopened boxes were found from which inferences about their origin and recent import could arise. The appellant's conduct, including his untruthful denial of their possession, indicated consciousness of their smuggled character or mens rea. In any case, there was some evidence to enable the Courts to come to the conclusion that the goods must have been known to the appellant to be smuggled even if he was not a party to a fraudulent evasion of duty. Consequently, the appellant had been convicted only under Section 135(1)(ii) of the Act. We do not find sufficient reason to interfere with this finding of fact or the sentence imposed. It would also follow that the goods were rightly confiscated. Appeal dismissed.

  ---

• 1975 (8) TMI 49
  
  Issues:
  Challenge to orders passed by Appellate Collector of Customs and Government of India under Customs Act, 1962 without depositing penalty. Interpretation of Sections 128 and 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding the deposit of penalty pending appeal.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The petitioner, a cloth merchant, challenged the seizure of cloth by Customs Preventive Officers. The Assistant Collector rejected the petitioner's explanation, confiscated the cloth, and imposed a penalty. The petitioner appealed against this decision to the Appellate Collector of Customs, Calcutta, but the appeal was rejected for non-compliance with Section 129(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. A revision application was filed with the Government of India, which was also rejected, leading to the writ petition challenging the impugned orders (paras 2).
  
  The main issue for consideration was whether an appeal under Sections 128 and 129 of the Customs Act, 1962 could be entertained without depositing the penalty levied and if so, whether the appeal could be heard without such deposit. Section 129 requires the deposit of duty demanded or penalty levied pending an appeal, with a provision for the Appellate Authority to dispense with such deposit in cases of undue hardship (paras 3-5).
  
  The Court noted the differences in language between the proviso to Section 129(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 and similar provisions in the Assam Sales Tax Act and Assam Finance (Sales Tax) Act. It emphasized that the penalty levied must be paid during the appeal unless the Appellate Authority dispenses with the deposit due to undue hardship. The timing of the penalty deposit during the appeal process was also discussed (paras 6-8).
  
  The Court held that the Appellate Authority must give the appellant a reasonable time to deposit the penalty after rejecting a prayer for dispensing with the deposit. The immediate rejection of the appeal for non-compliance with the deposit requirement was deemed unsustainable. The revisional order's stance on rejecting appeals for non-compliance was acknowledged, but it was clarified that a reasonable time should be given for compliance before rejecting the appeal (paras 8-11).
  
  Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned orders of the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority. The appellant was granted one month to deposit the penalty, and if done within the stipulated time, the appeal would be restored and disposed of accordingly. Failure to deposit the penalty would result in the dismissal of the petition and upholding of the impugned orders (paras 11-13).
  
  The petition was allowed conditionally, and the Rule was made absolute on the specified terms, with no order as to costs. Records were directed to be sent down immediately (paras 14-15).

  ---

• 1975 (8) TMI 48
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of Central Excises and Salt Act regarding classification of confectionery scraps for excise duty.
  
  Analysis:
  The petitioners, engaged in confectionery manufacturing, collected and sold scraps at a nominal price. The scraps were not considered confectionery nor covered under the Act's schedule. Despite no objections earlier, demands for excise duty were raised later. The petitioners contended that the scraps were not covered under Tariff Item 1A of the Act, emphasizing they were not confectionery. The Appellate Collector, however, viewed the scraps as parts of confectionery, subject to excise duty.
  
  The Appellate Collector's decision was challenged, arguing that the scraps were waste products unfit for consumption. The petitioners maintained that the scraps were obtained during manufacturing, not post-production. The court referred to precedents on the definition of "manufacture" and emphasized the need for a distinct transformation for excisability. It was crucial to determine if the scraps were integral to the final confectionery product or mere by-products.
  
  The court noted the Collector's reliance on evidence and upheld his role as the judge of facts. However, the decision was deemed lacking in evidence to support the classification of scraps as confectionery. The court highlighted the need for a proper assessment of whether the scraps underwent significant transformation during manufacturing.
  
  Regarding time-barred demand notices and Rule 10A applicability, the court deferred a decision, opting to remit the case for fresh consideration by the Appellate Collector. The Collector was directed to reevaluate the matter, allowing the petitioners to present evidence and materials. The possibility of chemical examination of scraps for conclusive classification was suggested.
  
  In conclusion, the court quashed the Appellate Collector's order, remanding the case for reevaluation within two months. The Collector was instructed to consider all relevant materials and evidence, including potential chemical analysis. No costs were awarded, and the petitioner's deposited amount was made available for withdrawal upon application.

  ---

• 1975 (8) TMI 47
  
  The petitioner challenged an order imposing duty for surreptitious removal of goods. The High Court directed a stay on the demand pending the revisional application's disposal. The Rule was made absolute with no costs awarded.

  ---

• 1975 (8) TMI 46
  
  The High Court of Andhra Pradesh upheld the dismissal of a petitioner's appeal due to being time-barred under the Central Excises and Salt Act. The court ruled that the Indian Limitation Act does not apply to government departments, so the delay could not be condoned. The writ petition challenging the order was dismissed.

  ---

• 1975 (8) TMI 45
  

  If 99 per cent of duty-paid crude' were used for manufacture of sheets etc., should the final product be exigible to tax at ₹ 500/- per MT?

  Held that:- By simple arithmetic worked out by the Collector of Central Excise and forwarded to the Central Government (Annexure E), the balance of stock of finished goods manufactured out of duty-paid slabs as on April 25, 1960 was 93.5099 MT. This quantity was actually cleared on payment of duty at the rate of ₹ 500/- per MT. But having been made out of duty-paid slabs the exemption notification applied and only ₹ 200/- per MT was payable. Thus the excess collected i.e. ₹ 300/- per MT was refundable. This is no surviving dispute on this matter.

  ---

• 1975 (8) TMI 44
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Conditions precedent for the issue of notice u/s 148 within the meaning of section 147(a).
  2. Limitation prescribed u/s 149(1)(b) for issuing notice u/s 148.
  3. Validity of sanction by the Commissioner of Income-tax u/s 151.
  
  Summary:
  
  1. Conditions precedent for the issue of notice u/s 148 within the meaning of section 147(a):
  The petitioner challenged the notice dated March 10, 1971, issued u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, arguing that the conditions precedent for such a notice within the meaning of section 147(a) were absent. The court found that the Income-tax Officer assumed jurisdiction based on two grounds: (1) a mistaken belief that the assessee-firm made a disclosure under the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1965, and (2) information regarding a loan account in the name of an employee, which should fall under section 147(b). The court held that the first ground was non-existent and the second ground fell under section 147(b), making the notice barred by limitation u/s 149. Therefore, the conditions precedent for issuing the notice u/s 148 were absent, rendering the notice illegal and without jurisdiction.
  
  2. Limitation prescribed u/s 149(1)(b) for issuing notice u/s 148:
  The notice u/s 148 was issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year (1962-63). The court noted that for the notice to be valid, it required the satisfaction of the Commissioner as per section 151(2). Since the second ground for issuing the notice fell under section 147(b), the notice was barred by limitation u/s 149(1)(b), as it was issued after the four-year period.
  
  3. Validity of sanction by the Commissioner of Income-tax u/s 151:
  The petitioner contended that the sanction by the Commissioner of Income-tax was mechanical and without application of mind. The court found that the first ground for issuing the notice was mistaken and non-existent, making the Additional Commissioner's satisfaction mechanical. Regarding the second ground, the court held that the satisfaction could only be with respect to section 147(b), and thus, the notice was barred by limitation u/s 149. Consequently, the sanction was not valid as contemplated u/s 151, rendering the notice u/s 148 invalid.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court quashed the impugned notice dated March 10, 1971, u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, declaring it illegal and without jurisdiction. The petition was allowed, and the rule was made absolute without any order as to costs.

  ---

• 1975 (8) TMI 43
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the mistake sought to be rectified by the Income-tax Officer was not a mistake apparent on the record which can be rectified under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  Issue 1: Tribunal's Error in Law Regarding Mistake Apparent on the Record
  
  Facts and Background:
  The relevant assessment year is 1967-68. The assessee was liable to pay an annuity deposit before 31st March 1967 but paid it on 3rd April 1967, resulting in a three-day delay. Initially, the Income-tax Officer allowed the deduction for the annuity deposit. However, on June 17, 1969, the Income-tax Officer rectified the order under section 154, withdrawing the allowance due to non-compliance with conditions for condoning the delay. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner confirmed this rectification. The Tribunal, however, held that the Income-tax Officer had exercised discretion to condone the delay and thus, the rectification under section 154 was not justified.
  
  Relevant Provisions:
  - Section 280C of the Income-tax Act, 1961: Specifies the requirement for annuity deposits.
  - Section 280D: Provides for repayment of annuity deposits.
  - Section 280-O: Allows deduction of annuity deposits in computing total income.
  - Section 280W: Empowers the Central Government to frame schemes for annuity deposits.
  - Clause 4 of the Annuity Deposit Scheme, 1966: Details the conditions under which the Income-tax Officer can allow deposits after the expiry of the financial year, including the requirement for an application in Form A and prior approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.
  
  Revenue's Contentions:
  The revenue argued that the Income-tax Officer's discretion under section 280C(2) is not absolute and must be exercised under specified conditions. The lack of compliance with these conditions (no application in the prescribed form, no written order, and no prior approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner) constituted an error apparent on the record, justifying rectification under section 154.
  
  Assessee's Contentions:
  The assessees contended that the Tribunal correctly inferred that the Income-tax Officer had condoned the delay by allowing the deduction, noting the payment date, and treating the annuity deposit in subsequent years. They argued that the discretionary order should not be interfered with.
  
  Court's Analysis:
  The court agreed with the revenue, stating that the Tribunal was not justified in inferring that the Income-tax Officer had exercised discretion to condone the delay. The court emphasized that the discretion under section 280C(2) is limited and subject to specific conditions:
  1. Submission of an application in the prescribed form before the specified date.
  2. Prior approval from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.
  3. A written order by the Income-tax Officer.
  
  Since these conditions were not met, the Tribunal's inference was incorrect. The court referenced the Supreme Court ruling in S. A. L. Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas, highlighting that the discretion must be exercised within the confines of the law.
  
  Precedent Cases:
  - S. A. L. Narayan Row v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas: The Supreme Court held that the Income-tax Officer's failure to consider retrospective laws made the assessment order defective.
  - Dalwadi & Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax: The Gujarat High Court held that omission to charge interest due to non-compliance with procedural requirements is an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying rectification under section 154.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court concluded that the Tribunal erred in law by holding that the mistake was not apparent on the record. The rectification orders by the Income-tax Officer were deemed legal and valid. The court recommended that the competent authority consider refunding the tax collected in subsequent years on respective instalments repaid under section 280D.
  
  Final Judgment:
  The question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the revenue, validating the rectification orders. No order as to costs was made in these references.

  ---

• 1975 (8) TMI 42
  
  The High Court of Orissa directed the Appellate Tribunal to consider whether the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was justified. The Tribunal cancelled the penalty citing the assessee's inability to file the return on time due to the firm's delay in finalizing accounts. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, referencing the case of Venkateswara Power Rolling Mills. No costs were awarded.

  ---

• 1975 (8) TMI 41
  
  Issues Involved:
  The judgment addresses the issue of whether the assessee, a trust created for charitable purposes, qualifies for exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 based on the interpretation of its trust deed and activities.
  
  Details of the Judgment:
  
  The trust in question was constituted by Sri Alur Laxminarayana Rao through a deed dated 17th March, 1958, settling a sum of Rs. 5,000 for various charitable objects outlined in the deed. The objects of the trust, as per Clause 4 of the deed, include providing benefits irrespective of caste, awarding scholarships, medical relief, managing endowments for educational purposes, establishing and running various institutions for public welfare, and contributing to charitable, religious, educational, and cultural activities. Additionally, the trust is empowered under Clause 8 of the deed to engage in trades or business activities to augment the trust fund.
  
  The Income-tax Officer for the assessment year 1969-70 initially denied the trust exemption under section 11 of the Act, contending that it was not a genuine charitable trust. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and subsequently the Tribunal held that the trust qualified as a charitable trust u/s 2(15) of the Act and was entitled to the exemption. The Tribunal noted that substantial funds had been applied for charitable purposes, particularly for the relief of the poor, education, and medical relief, which were deemed as the dominant objects of the trust.
  
  The department argued that the trust's engagement in business activities, as enabled by Clause 8 of the deed, disqualified it from being considered charitable and thus ineligible for exemption. However, the Tribunal rejected this argument, citing legal precedent that business activities do not disqualify a trust primarily focused on relief of the poor, education, and medical relief from claiming exemption u/s 11 of the Act.
  
  In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that the trust was indeed entitled to exemption under section 11 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The court emphasized that the trust's main objectives aligned with charitable purposes, and its engagement in business activities did not negate its eligibility for exemption.
  
  Therefore, the court answered the referred question in the affirmative, ruling in favor of the assessee and awarding costs for the reference.

  ---

• 1975 (8) TMI 40
  
  Issues involved:
  The issues involved in the judgment are whether the provisions of section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act were correctly applied and whether the transfer of shares standing in the name of the minor son should be considered in determining the taxable gift.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Application of section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act
  The deceased-assessee owned shares in two tea estate companies, and family arrangements were made to transfer shares among family members due to disputes. The Gift-tax Officer found the consideration for the transfer of shares to be inadequate compared to market value. The Tribunal held that the transfer constituted a deemed gift under section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act, emphasizing that adequacy of consideration is based on money value, not sentimental value. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the transfers were part of family arrangements to settle disputes, not transfers for inadequate consideration. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the High Court concluded that the transactions were not transfers but family settlements, thus section 4(1)(a) was not applicable, and there was no deemed gift.
  
  Issue 2: Consideration of shares transferred to minor son
  The Tribunal rejected the argument that shares transferred to the minor son should be considered in determining the taxable gift. The High Court upheld this decision, stating that the transaction involving the transfer of 425 shares to the son for inadequate consideration should not be conflated with other transactions involving different family members. The High Court emphasized that the transaction was specific to the deceased-assessee and his son, and the income from those shares was included in the assessee's hands due to legal provisions.
  
  Therefore, the High Court ruled in favor of the assessee, stating that section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act was not applicable, and there was no taxable deemed gift. The second question did not arise due to the negative answer to the first question.

  ---

• 1975 (8) TMI 39
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Whether the expenditure of Rs. 48,004 incurred between October 1, 1964, and March 31, 1965, could be allowed as business expenditure.
  
  Summary:
  
  Issue 1: Allowability of Expenditure as Business Expenditure
  
  The assessee, a private limited company incorporated on March 24, 1964, aimed to acquire immovable property and lease it out with amenities. The company purchased a bungalow on March 28, 1964, and claimed that it was ready to offer services from October 1, 1964. The expenditure of Rs. 48,004 incurred between October 1, 1964, and March 31, 1965, was claimed as business expenditure. The Income-tax Officer rejected this claim, stating that the business commenced only on May 1, 1965, when part of the building was given on leave and licence. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal upheld this decision, concluding that the company was not ready to carry on its business by October 1, 1964.
  
  The High Court analyzed the objects of the company, which included providing residential and office accommodation with amenities. The court noted that the business activities of the company could be divided into three categories: acquiring property, preparing it for lease, and actually leasing it out. The court emphasized that business activities include preparatory actions such as engaging staff and purchasing equipment.
  
  Referring to the principles laid down in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd., the court stated that business commences when the first essential activity is started. The court concluded that from October 1, 1964, the company was engaged in business activities by preparing the property for lease, thus incurring business expenditure.
  
  The court held that the Tribunal had not applied the correct tests and arrived at an erroneous conclusion. Therefore, the expenditure of Rs. 48,004 incurred between October 1, 1964, and March 31, 1965, should be allowed as business expenditure. The question was answered in the affirmative and in favor of the assessee, with costs to be paid by the Commissioner.

  ---

123456