|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 101 Records
-
1973 (4) TMI 22
Jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer to call for accounts for more than three years for making an assessment - This is an appeal from a judgment of Mr. Justice K. L. Roy delivered on 11 th March 1970. In an application under article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner, which is the appellant before us, had challenged a notice under section 131 issued to the principal officer of the appellant by the Income-tax Officer- for making an assessment the Income-tax Officer is empowered u/s 143(3) to require production of such documents as he might require - his power is not curtailed by section 142(1)(b)
-
1973 (4) TMI 21
Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 - computation of standard deduction – inclusion of bonus shares issued - "Whether Tribunal was correct in its construction of the expression 'paid-up capital' occurring in the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963, so as to include therein even such reserves as had been capitalized, and consequently in reducing the chargeable profits by Rs. 1,13,447?"
-
1973 (4) TMI 20
ITO issues notice under section 178 of Income-tax Act to the Official Liquidator to set apart the amount of tax dues - whether sanction of company court under section 446 of Companies Act would be necessary - we find support for the view that the process of recovery of tax which rank as a debt pari passu with other unsecured debts due from the company could not be taken away from the purview of section 446 of the Companies Act
-
1973 (4) TMI 19
Assessee-company was formerly carrying on the business of supply electricity at various places in Madras State. The business was taken over by the Madras Electricity Board under the Madras Electricity Undertakings Acquisition Act, 1954, with effect from June 1, 1957. As from this date the assessee-company ceased its business of aupplying electricity and did not deprive any income from the business as such - It carried on no business, but it had some interest income which was assessed under the head "other sources" - Whether expenses relating to establishment, salaries, remuneration and travelling of directors, etc. can be treated as having been incurred solely for earning the income and whether the Income-tax Officer would be justified in estimating portion of the expenses as attributable to earning the income
-
1973 (4) TMI 18
Agricultural Land - Whether a land can be treated as agricultural land if it was so described in income-tax and wealth-tax returns - When land is sold by an assessee, if he is shareholder of a company along with his relatives to that company for an amount less than the market value, what is the effect of the transaction - if the transaction is treated as deemed gift, whether capital gains also would be attracted
-
1973 (4) TMI 17
Whether an order u/s 132(8) should be communicated to the assessee and should be made within 180 days from the date of seizure - Whether the time can be extended at the instance of the officer to whom documents, etc. are handed over and whether information obtained during seizure can be obtained by other authorities under their own powers - petitioner has challenged the retention of the documents beyond the period of 180 days specified in section 132(8) - Petition dismissed.
-
1973 (4) TMI 16
Remuneration paid to the assessee's general manager who was an associate of its managing agent – assessee-company claimed the above amounts paid as remuneration to the said general manager after November 1, 1959, as expenditure coming under section 10(2)(xv) - allowability as deduction
-
1973 (4) TMI 15
Small percentage kept as dharmada and kept in separate account for being used only for charities - This is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner, Messrs. Thakur Das Shyam Sunder, prays for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order of the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax - even if some discretion was given to spend the amount deposited with the assessee on charity of his own choice, it does not mean that either no trust was created or that the trust created was invalid - order of the Income-tax Officer treating these amounts as the assessee's taxable income was invalid and should be quashed.
-
1973 (4) TMI 14
Assessee, filed her returns for both these years declaring incomes from property and interest at Rs. 71,919 and Rs. 89,420, respectively. In her return the assessee claimed collection charges of Rs. 4,529 and Rs. 4,404 against income from property known as Bangalore House Ranbir Mahal and Bombay flat - assessee is not entitled to claim any deduction in respect of these expenditures under section 24(1)(viii) of Income-tax Act, 1961
-
1973 (4) TMI 13
Levy of penalty for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars - Whether mens rea is necessary - hold that no error of law is involved in the judgment of the Tribunal. The decision of the Tribunal, therefore, deleting the penalty was perfectly correct in law
-
1973 (4) TMI 12
Petitioner-company is a Government of India undertaking registered under the Companies Act, 1956 - The questions that arise for determination in this petition pertain to development rebate provided for in section 33 of the income-tax Act, 1961 the conditions for allowance of such development rebate prescribed by section 34 and computation of capital employed in an industrial undertaking under section 80J of the said Act and rule 19A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
-
1973 (4) TMI 11
Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of shares held by the deceased and the firm.
2. Validity of valuing pledged shares at Rs. 110 instead of the market value.
3. Whether managing agency rights constitute property passing on the death of the deceased.
4. Justifiability of the principles of valuation of managing agency rights.
5. Validity of valuing managing agency rights at Rs. 6 lakhs.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Valuation of Shares Held by the Deceased and the Firm:
The accountable person declared the estate's value at Rs. 2,03,446, but the Assistant Controller valued it at Rs. 7,22,994. The shares of Messrs. Janardana Mills Ltd. were valued at Rs. 140 per share, against the market quotation of Rs. 87 per share on the date of death. The Board reduced the value to Rs. 110 per share, considering the special appeal of acquiring control over the mills. The court found that the market quotation should be the basis for valuation unless extraneous circumstances indicate otherwise. The valuation of Rs. 110 per share was deemed arbitrary and unsupported by evidence. The court held that the shares should be valued at Rs. 87 per share, the market quotation on the relevant date.
2. Validity of Valuing Pledged Shares at Rs. 110 Instead of the Market Value:
The court rejected the contention that the 500 shares pledged with the bank should be valued at the price they were sold in 1959 (Rs. 67 to Rs. 70 per share), as the relevant date for valuation was July 5, 1957. The court emphasized that the market quotation on the date of death should be the basis for valuation and not the subsequent sale price. The valuation of Rs. 110 per share was found to be speculative and unsupported by concrete evidence.
3. Whether Managing Agency Rights Constitute Property Passing on the Death of the Deceased:
The court referred to its previous decision in T.C. No. 275 of 1967, following the Supreme Court's ruling in J. K. Trust, Bombay v. Commissioner of Income-tax, that managing agency rights are considered "property" as they are a business interest and not merely a contract of personal service. The court held that the managing agency rights are indeed property passing on the death of the deceased, answering the question in the affirmative and against the accountable persons.
4. Justifiability of the Principles of Valuation of Managing Agency Rights:
The accountable persons contended that the managing agency rights should be valued considering the provisions of the Companies Act, which terminated such rights by August 15, 1960. The court agreed, stating that the valuation should reflect the reality that the managing agency could only be exploited for about three years. The court found that the Board's assumption that the Central Government might not terminate the managing agency agreement was speculative. The court held that the value should be based on the remuneration for the three years remaining until the statutory termination date.
5. Validity of Valuing Managing Agency Rights at Rs. 6 Lakhs:
The court found that the valuation of Rs. 6 lakhs for the managing agency rights was unjustified. The correct valuation should consider the remuneration the managing agents would have earned for the remaining three years. The court accepted the accountable persons' contention that the maximum value for the managing agency rights should be the total remuneration for the three years, which was Rs. 94,410. The deceased's 1/4th share in the managing agency rights should be valued accordingly.
Conclusion:
The court answered questions Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 and 6 in the negative and against the revenue, holding that the shares should be valued at Rs. 87 per share and the managing agency rights based on the three years' remuneration. The accountable persons were entitled to their costs from the revenue, with counsel's fee fixed at Rs. 250.
-
1973 (4) TMI 10
Assessee had been and at the material time also was a partner in a firm called M/s. Ramesh & Co. In this firm the assessee had 8 annas share and the balance was shared by three other partners, Kunjilal, assessee's father, Hariram, assessee's brother, and one Jagdish Prosad, a stranger. From his account with the said firm the assessee made two gifts to his wife, Kaushalya Debi, Rs. 21,000 on 10th November, 1960, and Rs. 30,000 on the 28th November, 1960. The assessee also made a gift of Rs. 11,000 to his mother, Smt. Chilli Bai, on 28th November, 1960, by similarly drawing from his account with the firm. - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the share of the profit of assessee's wife was includible in the total income of the assessee under section 64(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? "
-
1973 (4) TMI 9
When questions of law raised for earlier years were rejected by Supreme Court and also the application for special leave was rejected - High Court was not justified in accepting the Commissioner's applications under section 66(2). We, accordingly, allow these appeals and set aside the order of the High Court
-
1973 (4) TMI 8
Assessment made long after the firm was dissolved - assessment was also made on a non-existing firm and that too without any notice to the interested person. Hence, in our opinion, the High Court was right in its conclusion that there was no valid assessment - Once we come to the conclusion that the assessment made on Mr. Sattler was not valid, it necessarily follows that Mrs. Sattler was not liable to discharge the alleged tax liability
-
1973 (4) TMI 7
Return was submitted to an Income-tax Officer who had no jurisdiction, territorial or otherwise, over the assessee - Consequently notice issued by him and the returns filed in response were invalid. The fresh notice by the second officer and the assessments by him were therefore valid
-
1973 (4) TMI 6
When a trader transfers his goods to another trader at a price which is less than the market price, so long as the transaction is bona fide the revenue authorities cannot consider the market price ignoring the real price fetched to compute profits from the transaction
-
1973 (4) TMI 5
Whether the amounts claimed by the appellants as their losses in transactions in gunny bags which were concluded by the transfer or delivery of pucca delivery orders were speculative losses under Explanation 2 to the proviso to s. 24(1) - authorities under the Act have completely misdirected themselves as to the questions of fact to be decided. Hence, there is need for a fresh enquiry. Therefore it will be in the interest of the parties to remand the cases to the Tribunal for a fresh enquiry
-
1973 (4) TMI 4
Whether in computing the market value of the shares the assessee is entitled to the deduction by way of brokerage commission - Whether, on a true construction of section 5(1)(viii) & 5(1)(xv) of the Wealth-tax Act, the assessee is entitled to the exclusion of the value of jewellery from the computation of his total wealth - Whether any part of the amount fixed as compensation payable to the assessee under the Bihar Land Reforms Act is liable for inclusion in the total wealth
-
1973 (4) TMI 3
Issues:
Whether the assessee-firm is entitled to registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
Analysis:
The case involved appeals regarding the registration of an assessee-firm under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922. The firm was constituted under a partnership deed dated February 5, 1955, with five partners, one of whom was a minor. The partnership deed specified equal profit and loss sharing among partners. The application for registration was made on June 30, 1955, and the firm was registered on January 10, 1956, after addressing objections raised by the Registrar of Firms regarding the minor partner's involvement. However, the Commissioner of Income-tax later set aside the registration, deeming the partnership ab initio void due to the minor partner's presence and unfavorable terms in the deed.
The High Court and the Tribunal affirmed the Commissioner's decision, stating the partnership was not legally valid. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing that the applications for registration and renewal did not meet the legal requirements. The Court highlighted that the partnership deed's subsequent alteration could not validate the registration application, especially as it was made after the prescribed deadline. The Court also noted non-compliance with rules regarding the minor partner's share representation in the applications.
The Court referred to relevant sections and rules under the Act, emphasizing strict compliance with section 26A and related rules for registration benefits. Precedents were cited to support the requirement of adherence to statutory provisions for claiming registration benefits. The Court rejected arguments for substantial compliance with rules and emphasized the need for strict adherence to statutory requirements.
The Court dismissed appeals, upholding the decisions that the applications did not conform to legal requirements for registration. The Court directed each party to bear its own costs. The judgment underscores the importance of strict compliance with statutory provisions for claiming benefits under section 26A of the Income-tax Act.
|
9911796707
