Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 98 of 98 Records
-
1978 (5) TMI 18 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Failure To Disclose Fully And Truly, Hundi Loans, Original Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... is postulated is non disclosure of full facts and untrue disclosure of full facts on the earlier occasion. The present case is that of suspected untruthful disclosure. In my view, the primary facts to arrive at the reason to believe did not exist in the present case . Indeed, the facts of the present case, as noticed earlier, are almost identical to Chhugamal Rajpal s case 1971 79 ITR 603 (SC) and the case of ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das 1976 103 ITR 437 (SC). In this view of the matter, the writ petition is accepted, the rule is made absolute and a writ is issued quashing the impugned notice under s. 148 read with s. 147 of the Act received by the petitioner on March 28, 1970, and notice dated April 12, 1973, issued by respondent No. 1, under s. 142(1) of the Act. I also issue a writ of prohibition restraining the respondents from taking any proceedings in pursuance of the notices quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 300. Rule made absolute.
-
1978 (5) TMI 17 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Property Of HUF ... ... ... ... ..... y bequeathed by Smt. Manbhawati Devi would become the joint family property. Smt. Manbhawati Devi was competent to make a will and under that will she bequeathed some property in favour of the HUF. We fail to understand as to what was the legal bar in the way of Smt. Manbhawati Devi in bequeathing some property in favour of the HUF. In our view, the Tribunal committed an error in observing that as Smt. Manbhawati Devi was not a coparcener, the property bequeathed by her could not become the property of the HUF. In this view of the matter, we hold that the property bequeathed by Smt. Manbhawati Devi acquired the character of joint family property of the HUF constituted by Ghansham Dass, his wife and unmarried daughter. Consequently, question No. (ii) is answered in the negative. In view of our finding on question No. (ii), question No. (iii) is answered in the affirmative and question No. (iv) in the negative. The assessee will be entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 250.
-
1978 (5) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Held By Assessee, Property Of HUF ... ... ... ... ..... e than one place that there was a joint family, that the properties acquired by the Prime Minister belonged to the coparceners in the said joint family and that power had been specifically given to the Prime Minister only to distribute the properties between the members of the joint family in any manner he liked. It will be neither correct nor lawful to rely only on the last lines in the said document and hold that the properties referred to therein were the personal and self-acquired properties of the assessee and that the same continued to remain as such. The question itself proceeds on the basis that the Lal Mohar, the two Khadga Nishanas and the opinion of the expert on Nepalese law has to be taken into account for the purpose of arriving at the answer. The answer, therefore, becomes self-evident. For the reasons as aforesaid, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1978 (5) TMI 15 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Change Of Law, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... at the requirement of s. 66(1) of the Indian I.T. Act that the application shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 100 did not mean a literal stitching up of the fee with the application for reference. The provision was held to be directory. In our opinion, the Tribunal was justified in taking the view that the assessee was entitled to continuation of registration because it had filed the requisite declaration before the assessment was made. Neither the statement nor the Tribunal s order indicates the nature of the defects in the declaration. Section 185(2) enables the assessee to rectify formal defects, if any. We presume that there may have been some such defects and hence the Tribunal was justified in directing the assessee to rectify the defects within the meaning of s. 185(2). We, therefore, answer both the questions referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (5) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Cross Transfer ... ... ... ... ..... 3 (Cal) put an end to the controversy in the matter before us. It appears to us that the facts found are sufficient to hold that the income in the instant case which was sought to be assessed in the hands of the assessee, arose directly or indirectly to the spouse of the assessee from assets transferred indirectly and through the means of a trust. No consideration has been shown to have been passed from the wife of the assessee nor is it anybody s case that the assessee and his wife agreed to live apart. In our opinion, the words directly or indirectly as contained in the said section are wide enough to cover transfers effected through the means or devise of trust. . For the above reasons, the revenue succeeds in this reference. Question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. Question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative and also in favour of the revenue. In the facts and circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. C. K. BANERJI J.--I agree.
-
1978 (5) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Market Value, Original Assessment, Reassessment Notice, Retrospective Effect, Unquoted Shares, Wealth Tax
-
1978 (5) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Dealer In Shares ... ... ... ... ..... are not losses in speculative transactions. We have discussed the matter at some length because the question has not come up for consideration earlier but is likely to recur and Sri Manchanda argued the matter elaborately. But it seems to us that the basic question is a simple one and in view of the concurrent findings and, indeed, admission that delivery on each of the settlement dates was taken or given only in respect of a part of the purchases or sales settled on that date, we really do not see how it can be said that there was any delivery of shares except to that extent. We may also add that it can also perhaps be contended that in the Expln., the word delivery goes with the word commodity and the word transfer with the word scrips but even on that interpretation the result in the present case will be no different. For the reasons above mentioned, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. We, however, make no order as to costs.
-
1978 (5) TMI 11 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment Notice, Cash Credits, Notice For Reassessment, Original Assessment, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... not disclosed the true intention behind the sale the question whether the sale was a trading transaction was for the ITO to decide, i.e., a mere change of opinion. Their Lordships accordingly struck down the notice under s. 34(1)(a). Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that the same is the law even after the Forty-second Amendment of the Constitution and he relies upon Dr. H.K. Mahatab v. ITO 1978 111 ITR 900 (Orissa), Mohindra Mohan Sirkar v. ITO 1978 112 ITR 47 (Cal), Shardaben Jayantilal Shah v. R. S. Belsare, TRO 1978 112 ITR 156 (Guj). In the view that we have taken we do not think it necessary to go into this vexed question. We may, however, point out that a view to the contrary has been taken in Jai Hanuman Trading Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT 1977 110 ITR 36 (Punj) FB . For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition must fail. It is dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Security deposit be refunded to the petitioner after verification.
-
1978 (5) TMI 10 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Dissolution Of Firm, Dissolved Firm, Partner In Firm ... ... ... ... ..... in the name of his minor son, Jagmohandas. We are, therefore, clearly of the view that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that Jagmohandas was a benamidar for his father, Manaklal, in the newly constituted firm, Manaklal Gordhandas , and that his income in that firm is the income of his father. In the light of the view that we have taken above, our opinion on the aforesaid two questions of law referred to this court is as under (a) In the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that Jagmohandas, the minor, is only a benamidar of his father, Manaklal, the assessee. (b) In the facts and in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the share income of the minor, Jagmohandas, from the firm, M/s. Manaklal Gordhandas, be clubbed in the income of his father, Manaklal, who is not a partner in the said firm. In the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1978 (5) TMI 9 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... t. It is settled that, on a reference, the court is not obliged to answer academic questions of law referred to it by the Tribunal. We, accordingly, confine our answer to the question as to whether the IAC could pass the impugned penalty order in view of the amendment to s. 274(2). In I.T.R. No. 306 of 1974 (CIT v. Om Sons) decided by us today (since reported in 1979 116 ITR 215), we have held that after the amendment to s. 274(2) of the Act, the ITO alone had jurisdiction to impose penalty in cases where the concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars is up to Rs. 25,000. As in the present case, the order of penalty has been passed by the IAC, we answer the question referred by saying that the IAC had no jurisdiction to pass the penalty order on the 17th March, 1973. We decline to express any opinion as to whether the penalty order was within limitation. The assessee is entitled to its costs which are assessed at Rs. 200. Counsel s fee is assessed at the same figure.
-
1978 (5) TMI 8 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... As observed earlier, the Tribunal s findings are not binding on the criminal court. A criminal court is to independently go into the allegations mentioned in the complaint on the basis of the evidence to be adduced by the revenue and it is open to the petitioners to take any defence to prove their case before the Magistrate. They can even produce the judgment of the Tribunal before the Magistrate subject to its admissibility. In this situation, I do not find that any case, for an abuse of the process of court, has been made out. Moreover, it may be highlighted that even the revenue itself does consider that the findings may be binding on the ITOs. But the revenue has vehemently opposed the application for quashing the complaint before the Magistrate. No other point is urged. For the reasons recorded above, this petition fails and is dismissed and the parties are directed to appear before the Magistrate on 19th June, 1978, who will proceed with the case in accordance with law.
-
1978 (5) TMI 7 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Principal Value Of Estate ... ... ... ... ..... on the assessee, a partner of the firm, whose only income was the share income from the firm, is legal when a penalty under s. 271(1)(a) has also been levied on the firm. Answer to question No. 3 Imposition of penalty under s. 27l(1)(a) is legal when interest under sub-cl. (iii) of the proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 139 of the Act has also been charged from the assessee. Answer to question No. 4 The imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) is legal even though the assessee had filed the return of income within the time allowed under subs. (4) of s. 139 of the Act. The reference is answered accordingly. The assessee shall pay the costs of the revenue. Counsel s fee Rs. 150, if certified.
-
1978 (5) TMI 6 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ing that the assessee did not have reasonable cause for not furnishing the return of income within the time allowed, is a finding of fact and on that finding the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act was legal. Answer to question No. 2 The penalty levied under s. 271(1)(a) on the assessee, a partner of the firm, whose only income was the share income from the firm, is legal when a penalty under s. 271(1)(a) has also been levied on the firm. Answer to question No. 3 Imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) is legal when interest under sub-cl. (iii) of the proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 139 of the Act has also been charged from the assessee. Answer to question No. 4 The imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(a) is legal even though the assessee had filed the return of income within the time allowed under sub s. (4) of s. 139 of the Act. The reference is answered accordingly. The assessee shall pay the costs of the revenue. Counsel s fee in each case, Rs. 150, if certified.
-
1978 (5) TMI 5 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... hin the time allowed by sub-s. (4) of s. 139. We, accordingly, answer this reference in favour of the revenue and against the assessee as under Answer to question No. (1) When interest according to the provisions of sub-cl. (iii) of the proviso to sub-s. (1) of s. 139 has been charged from the assessee, the penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act is legal when the department has taken the view that the failure to furnish the return within the time allowed was without a reasonable cause. Answer to question No. (2) The penalty imposed under s. 271(1)(a) of the Act is legal on the department taking the view that the failure to furnish the return within the time allowed was without a reasonable cause, even though the assessee had filed the return within the time allowed under sub-s. (4) of s. 139 of the Act. Answer to question No. (3) Does not arise. The reference is answered accordingly. The assessee shall pay the costs of the revenue. Counsel s fee Rs. 150, if certified.
-
1978 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT
Acquisition of undertaking under the Madras Electricity Supply Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1954 - surplus arising from such acquisition - acquisition was a "transfer" came within the scope of section 12B of the Income-tax Act - liable to capital gains tax
-
1978 (5) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
Business of import and sale was closed by the appellant - there was a common control and common management of the same board of directors" of the business of import and export. Thus, the unity of control and the other circumstances adverted to above show that there was dovetailing or inter-lacing between the business of import and the business of export carried on by the assessee and that they constitute the same business - that the appellant is entitled to set off the unabsorbed loss
-
1978 (5) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Double Taxation Relief - assessee is a resident company carrying on business of general insurance who held shares of U.K. based joint stock companies - all the requirements of section 49D have been satisfactorily established by the assessee - held that assessee could be said to have paid income-tax in U.K. by deduction or otherwise in respect of the net dividends so as to be eligible for the relief contemplated by section 49D
-
1978 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Liability to pay income tax - Respondent, a company does the business of clearing and forwarding and as steamship agents - whether the respondent is liable to the income-tax demanded of it by the Income-tax Officer, depends for its decision on the construction of section 172 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - no liability of respondent
|