|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 133 Records
-
1975 (7) TMI 53 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Export Business, Export Profits Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... to in sub-clause (i). But that by itself would not entitle the assessee to claim rebate under section 2(5)(a)(i), for cases where the export is channelled through a third party are specifically dealt with under section 2(5)(a)(iii) and inasmuch as the legislature has made specific provisions for these classes of assessees those who channel their export through a third party, recourse cannot be had to section 2(5)(a)(i) of the Act. Further, the acceptance of the contention of the assessee s counsel would lead to the anomalous result that a direct exporter would be entitled to the rebate under sections 2(5)(a)(i) and 2(5)(a)(ii), while an indirect exporter would get the benefit of rebate under all the three clauses. We cannot attribute such an intention to the legislature. The question is accordingly answered in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the department. The Commissioner is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200. Question answered in the negative.
-
1975 (7) TMI 52 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Debt Owed, Fixed Assets, Income Tax, Tax Liability, Valuation Date, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... l in the context of the question referred to us. It is clause (k) and it says that the party of the first part and the party of the second part, i.e., the two major parties, shall devote all their time for the business of the partnership and shall be faithful to each other and to the minor (party of the third part) admitted to the benefits of the partnership. In view of the aforesaid recital and the aforesaid provisions, which are to be found in the operative part of the documents, it is more than clear that the minor was merely admitted to the benefits of the partnership and was not made a full-fledged partner. The mere fact, therefore, that the document was signed or executed by the minor s natural guardian and mother cannot run counter to the true and proper effect of the recital and the operative part. In this view of the matter, in our view, the registration was properly granted. The question is, therfore, answered in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1975 (7) TMI 51 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Debt Owed, Fixed Assets, Income Tax, Tax Liability, Valuation Date, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... ed on the valuation date within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Wealth-tax Act? As this question is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in, the case of H. H. Setu Parvati Bayi v. Commissioner of Wealth-tax it has to be answered in accordance with the ratio of that case. In that case the Supreme Court held that by virtue of section 3 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, the liability to pay wealth-tax becomes crystallised on the valuation date and not on the first day of the assessment year, though the tax is levied and becomes payable in the relevant assessment year. The wealth-tax liability of an assessee on the valuation date for the a ment year beginning on the 1st of April following is a debt owed within the meaning of section 2(m) of the Act, and should be deducted from the estimated value of the assets as on the valuation date. In view of this decision the question No. 2 referred to us is answered in the affirmative. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1975 (7) TMI 50 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains Tax, Income Tax Act, Partnership Firm ... ... ... ... ..... possibility of a transaction of sale when a proprietary concern is converted into a partnership, the mere fact that the parties chose to adopt a form which is in the nature of a sale will not convert that transaction into a sale. The decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner Income-tax v. B. M. Kharwar relied on by the learned counsel for the revenue related to a sale by a partnership firm to a private limited company which is a legal entity and, therefore, is of no assistance. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal was wrong in holding that there was a sale of the assets by the assessee to the partnership firm. We, accordingly, answer the first question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. For the same reason we also hold that no question of capital gains arise under section 45 of the Act. We, accordingly, answer the second question also in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1975 (7) TMI 49 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules, Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... he ornaments, jewellery, etc., of annexures D-I , D-II , D-III and D-IV to Shri Om Parkash Jindal, petitioner, within 10 days from today. They may, if so advised by law, collect material and decide on the basis of it and the material already collected by them, within the said 10 days, as to whether they have reason to believe that the ornaments, jewellery, etc., of the aforesaid four annexures are undisclosed property. If they find it so, they would be at liberty to proceed in the matter according to law. It is added for the sake of clarity that if the authorised officers seize the aforesaid ornaments under clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of section 132, within the aforesaid 10 days, action would be taken under sub-section (5) of section 132 and the direction to restore the aforesaid ornaments, stated above, would lapse. So, the writ petition is allowed only to the extent, referred to above, but in the peculiar circumstances of the case the parties will bear their own costs.
-
1975 (7) TMI 48 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Speculation Loss ... ... ... ... ..... tion 132, the articles can be seized from such person because his possession was on behalf of the person who had possession before seizure. The question that came up for consideration in that case being different, that case also is not pertinent here. It was also contended on behalf of the revenue that the Act itself provides adequate remedy for a person aggrieved by an order under section 132(3). Whether the Act provides such remedy or not, where any authority acts without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction which action might result in unnecessary harassment of the person concerned, this court can intervene under article 226. Alternative remedy even if available is not always a bar to this court acting under article 226. I need only refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Calcutta. In the result the original petitions are allowed and exhibit P-1 in the three cases set aside. However, I make no order as to costs.
-
1975 (7) TMI 47 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Failure To File, Firm Registration, Income Tax Act, Minor Admitted To Benefits Of Partnership, Revised Returns
-
1975 (7) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment Of Income, Change In Constitution Of Firm ... ... ... ... ..... with respect to the provisions in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, when there was no definition of the words change in the constitution of the firm as contained in section 187(2). Further, in that judgment itself it has been noted, that it may sometimes happen that although the remaining partners purported to form a new partnership, the old partnership nevertheless continued to exist and that the new partnership masquerades as a new partnership although it is not one. The decision itself was rendered on the basis of a finding that the two partnerships were different and it is on that basis it was held that the aggregation of the income of the two partnerships was not justified. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the assessment of the entire amount as the income of the previous year on the assessee-firm was justified. For the foregoing reasons, we answer the reference in the affirmative and against the assessee. Revenue will be entitled to its costs. Counsel fee Rs. 250.
-
1975 (7) TMI 45 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
A Partner, Firm Registration ... ... ... ... ..... 1964, was utilised to support this conclusion of fact. Even if the original term was that all the assets would be transferred, it was open to the partners to modify the same and the resolution must be taken to be one of modification. The modification is not one of the essential terms of the partnership and the Tribunal having taken an overall picture of the matter has come to hold that the firm was a genuine one and was entitled to registration. Learned standing counsel contended that construction of a document was a question of law and, therefore, the statement should be called for. We do not dispute the correctness of the proposition advanced, but in the facts of the case, we find that the Tribunal has taken an overall picture of the matter and has come to a conclusion on a question of fact. We do not agree that any question of law arises for adjudication by this court. Accordingly, the applications are rejected. There shall be no order as to costs. B. K. RAY J.--I agree.
-
1975 (7) TMI 44 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Firm Registration ... ... ... ... ..... , because the question whether Rajendrakumar was admitted to the benefits of partnership or was made a fullfledged partner under the initial indenture of partnership has to be decided having regard to the terms of the original indenture. This is not a case where any ambiguity exists in the provisions of the original indenture and, therefore, other evidence will not be of any use in deciding the question whether under the indenture of partnership dated February 17, 1960, minor, Rajendrakumar, was made a fullfledged partner or was merely admitted to the benefits of partnership. Such a question has to be decided on the terms of the indenture itself. Thus, in our opinion, the taxing authorities were right in taking the view that the partnership constituted under the indenture of partnership dated February 17, 1960, cannot be regarded as a valid partnership in law. Thus, our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative. The assessee shall pay the costs of the revenue.
-
1975 (7) TMI 43 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Order, Business Expenditure, Deduction In Respect, Excise Duty, Expenditure On Scientific Research, High Court To Interfere, In Part, Income Tax Act, Mercantile System, Natural Justice, Previous Year, Writ Jurisdiction, Writ Petition
-
1975 (7) TMI 42 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... sales transactions between the assessee and N. V. Vadivel Mudaliar and Co. The sum of Rs. 17,840 forms part of the said sum of Rs. 1,38,811. As far as the profit on the sum of Rs. 1,38,811 is concerned it has already been taxed. There is no further sum of Rs. 17,840 available for taxation as it is clearly part of sale proceeds receivable from N. V. Vadivel Mudaliar and Co. As the profit on the transaction with N. V. Vadivel Mudaliar and Co. had been taxed and as Rs. 17,840 is not cash credit by itself, we consider that there is no addition of Rs. 17,840 possible at all. The question as to whether this addition, if it could be made, can be defended by the assessee by relying on the decision in Kuppuswami Mudaliar v. Commissioner of Income-tax does not arise for consideration as the addition could not at all have been made in the case. We, therefore, answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The assessee will have his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1975 (7) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, One Partner ... ... ... ... ..... er the agreement dated 24th November, 1961, was that the payment was in consideration of the user of the share and interest of the deceased partner in the quota rights that was made available to the continuing partners and since such user merely enabled the continuing partners to have the necessary facility to purchase their stock-in-trade in which they were dealing, the purpose of expenditure was clearly not to acquire any capital asset of an enduring nature. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the payment of Rs. 1,800 that was made during the three months falling within the accounting period of Samvat year 2017 was in the nature of revenue expenditure and was an allowable deduction in computing the assessable income of the assessee. The question is, therefore, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The revenue will pay the costs of the assessee. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1975 (7) TMI 40 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Set Off, Speculation Loss ... ... ... ... ..... d by the Income-tax Officer from the earlier years. If that was so, then the sum of Rs. 11,369 which represented the speculation profit in the relevant year should first be set off in view of the provisions of this circular against the carried forward speculation losses of the earlier years and if that is done, then the question referred to us shall have to be answered against the revenue. Applying the provisions of the above circular of the Central Board of Revenue, we hold that the taxing authorities and the Tribunal were not justified in refusing to allow the set-off of carried forward losses of speculation business against the speculation profit of Rs. 11,369 of the assessment year 1958-59. Thus, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and against the revenue. There will be no order as to costs since the provisions of this circular were not brought to the notice of any of the taxing authorities or the Tribunal when the assessee s matter was heard by them.
-
1975 (7) TMI 39 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Civil Court, High Court Judgment, Mercantile System ... ... ... ... ..... forceable. A mere claim to a profit or to a liability is not sufficient to make the profit to accrue or the liability to be incurred for the purposes of the Income-tax Act. This was also a case where a controversy existed between the person making a claim and the person who was liable to make the payment. We are not concerned with any such question in the present case as no controversy really existed between the company and the assessee. In fact, right from the inception the company had accepted its liability to pay and notwithstanding the litigation by the shareholders it ultimately paid not only the amount due but interest as and from the time when each respective amount had become payable in respect of each accounting period. These cases, therefore, in our opinion, are not of much assistance to Mr. Trivedi to support his contentions. Thus our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative and against the assessee. The assessee shall pay the costs of the revenue.
-
1975 (7) TMI 38 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Notice For Reassessment, Original Assessment, Share Value, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... otation being within a reasonably proximate time of the date of the valuation. If there is a quotation of a share in the stock exchange on a date in 1962 or even in 1966 when the date of valuation is March 31, 1968, it will not be a quoted share as implied by the definition under the said clause but it will be unquoted share as therein defined in the absence of regular quotation of regular transactions. If the assessee, therefore, simply relies on such quotations of shares of a date much earlier than reasonably proximate date as in the instant case, such action will not amount to, as it appears to me, a true and full disclosure of all material facts necessary for assessment of his net wealth as required under section 14 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, attracting operation of section 17(1)(a). As already stated, I concur with my Lords for the reasons stated in the judgment of the learned Chief justice that the rule should be discharged and all interim orders vacated as proposed.
-
1975 (7) TMI 37 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Assessed Income, Burden Of Proof, Income Returned ... ... ... ... ..... issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner were misleading and, therefore, the assessee proceeded to lead no evidence. We are not in a position to say one way or the other with reference to such a submission because the notices are not before us and such a case has not been canvassed before the Appellate Tribunal. If the assessee rests on a contention of this type before the Appellate Tribunal after the matter goes before it, it is for the Tribunal to consider whether such a question does arise for consideration in accordance with law. We would answer the question referred to us by holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the Explanation added to section 271(1)(c) of the Act with effect from April 1, 1964, the levy of penalty was in accordance with law. The judgments of this court referred to above were delivered after the Tribunal disposed of the appeals. Therefore, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. B. K. RAY J.---I agree.
-
1975 (7) TMI 36 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Expenditure, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... , resulted in the benefit of the mine. The mine after such construction was free from the apprehended danger. The danger apprehended was not illusory as it had occurred at least once earlier. The benefit conferred cannot also be stated to be temporary or for any particular year as the object of the construction was prevention of recurrence of such disaster in future. Therefore, if this was the object, there was an enduring benefit to the existing asset of the business as a result of such new construction. Looking at the entire facts and circumstances from the point of view as indicated above, we are of the opinion that the expenses incurred in the instant case for the construction of the dams was in the nature of capital expenditure and not revenue expenditure. Accordingly, we answer the question referred at the instance of the revenue in the negative and in favour of the revenue. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. DEB J.--I agree. Question answered in the negative.
-
1975 (7) TMI 35 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... ly taken are not courts. Therefore, the contention based on the alleged violation of the provisions contained in section 195(1)(b) of the Code also fails. What is more, section 279(1) says that no person shall be proceeded against for an offence under the various sections mentioned therein except at the instance of the Commissioner. In para. 2 of the complaint it is specifically stated that the complaint is filed as authorised by the Commissioner. This satisfies the requirement of that section also. This revision against an order passed by the court below at an interlocutory stage is not maintainable under section 397(2) of the Code. This petition is not maintainable under section 482 of the Code also since it cannot be said that the prosecution against the accused is either an abuse of the process of any court or interference is necessary otherwise to secure the ends of justice. All the contentions raised by the petitioners fail and accordingly the Crl. M.Ps. are dismissed.
-
1975 (7) TMI 34 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Capital Of Company, Chargeable Profits, Deduction In Respect, Income Tax Act, Total Income, Writ Petition
|
