Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 71 Records
-
1973 (5) TMI 31
Assessed Income, Burden Of Proof, Reasonable Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ect intended to be achieved . Therefore, we do not accept the view that the points which have been raised before us were either not raised before the Allahabad High Court or by they were not examined by that High Court. Since our views correspond fully with the views expressed by the Allahabad High Court, we feel that the decision which we have reached is fortified by the opinion expressed by the Allahabad High Court. Another point urged by the petitioner s counsel is that the object which the Explanation seeks to achieve is itself discriminatory and so the Explanation offends article 14. We find no merit in this submission of the petitioner s counsel, nor we have been able to appreciate what it implies in the context of the impugned Explanation. No other point has been raised before us. In the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Advocate s fee, Rs. 250. The rule issued by this court stands discharged. BAHARUL ISLAM J.-- I agree. Petition dismissed.
-
1973 (5) TMI 30
Accounting Year, Public Limited Company, Tax Liability, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... opinion that the Tribunal came to the correct decision and was justified in applying section 23A on the ground that the payment of a larger dividend than what was declared would not have been unreasonable having regard to the profits made in the respective previous years 1957-58 and 1958-59, relating to the assessment years 1958-59 and 1959-60. The question No. 4 is answered, therefore, in the affirmative. We must, however, observe that though wealth-tax liability would not be allowable as deduction under clause (b) of section 23A(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in so far as this was liability created by the law of the land, this liability should also be taken into consideration in examining whether larger dividend should have been declared having regard to the profits made which should be computed after taking into consideration the liability for the wealth-tax. In the facts and circumstances of the case, each party will pay and bear its own costs. HAZRA J.--I agree.
-
1973 (5) TMI 29
Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... o furnish such a return. The result is that the said notices dated 13th March, 1969, issued by respondent No. 1 are quashed and/or set aside. There will be a writ in the nature of certiorari for that purpose. There will also be a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from giving any effect to the said notices dated 13th March, 1969. I, however, have not adjudicated upon the merits of the contention as to whether the petitioner is liable to any penalty or to any other consequences under the Act for the alleged failure to furnish any return under section 206 of the Act or for the alleged failure to deduct the tax at the time of the payment of salaries to the employees. I also make it clear that this order in no way will affect or prejudice the right of the appropriate Income-tax Officer to take any appropriate action under the law against the petitioner. This rule is made absolute to the extent indicated above. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1973 (5) TMI 28
Business Income, Set Off, Textile Mill ... ... ... ... ..... its owner. It realised income from the assets as owner and, as such, such income was liable to be taxed under section 12. Section 12 when it speaks of income from letting of the building or plant refers to the letting of assets which are in law the properties of the assessee as capital assets. Those provisions are not attracted where the assessee finds it advantageous to divert temporarily the user of its assets to some other person without intending to permanently suspend its business activity. For those reasons our answer to the question referred to us is that the income derived by the assessee-company by way of lease-rent from the letting out of its assets during the years ended December 31, 1959, December 31, 1960, December 31, 1961, and December 31, 1962, is assessable to tax under the head profits and gains of business . The assessee will be entitled to its costs which is assessed at Rs. 200. Fee of the learned counsel for the department is assessed at the same figure.
-
1973 (5) TMI 27
Appeal To AAC, Penal Interest ... ... ... ... ..... ontrary view taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of Mathura Das B. Mohta v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1965 56 ITR 269 (Bom). It appears that the earlier decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Keshardeo Shrinivas Morarka v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1963 48 ITR 404 (Bom) was not brought to its notice. In that case, the Bombay High Court had considered the effect of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of C. A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer 1961 41 ITR 425 (SC) and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhikaji Dadabhai and Co. 1961 42 ITR 123 (SC) and had reiterated its earlier view expressed in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jagdish Prasad Ramnath 1955 27 ITR 192 (Bom). We are in respectful agreement with that decision of the Bombay High Court and see no reason to change our view. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to its costs, which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1973 (5) TMI 26
Assessment Of Income Of Trust In Hands Of Settlor, Trust Whether Revocable, Trusts ... ... ... ... ..... assessment and referring the case back to the Income-tax Officer. To advert back to the submission that this court has no power to determine whether the Income-tax Officer s order was null and void or merely irregular, which has been made on behalf of the assessee, it is necessary to say that without determining that question, it is impossible to answer the question referred to us. It is, therefore, an inherent part of the question referred to us. On the view that the order of the Income-tax Officer is not null and void, but has to be related to the provisions of the law which gave him jurisdiction, it follows that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could set aside the assessment and refer the case back to the income-tax Officer. In view of this conclusion, the answer to the question referred to us has to be in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1973 (5) TMI 25
" Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper construction of section 49A and Explanation (ii) to section 49D of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, the Tribunal was right in holding that the Income-tax Officer was not justified in deducting the amount of abatement allowable under the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation with Pakistan from the amount of the Indian income-tax for the purpose of determination of the Indian rate of tax mentioned in clause (b) of section 49D(3) of the said Act ? " - this question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee
-
1973 (5) TMI 24
Estate Duty Act, 1953 - father gifts money to sons, they invest the money and enter into partnership with the father - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of section 10 of the Estate Duty Act, 1953, were applicable to this case ? " - we are of the opinion that the donees in the present case did not enjoy the possession of the donated amount of Rs. 1 lakh to the entire exclusion of the donor as long as it formed the part of the capital of the firm of which the donor was a partner. - Question answered in the affirmative
-
1973 (5) TMI 23
Set Off - " Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was entitled to carry forward and set off losses of the earlier years against dividend income of the assessee in the assessment year 1958-59 ? " - we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue
-
1973 (5) TMI 22
Initially Income-tax Officer allowed the loss on the basis of the decision of tribunal for earlier year that the particular transaction was not speculative. Whether he can subsequently reopen the assessment in view of the later opinion of the Tribunal in other cases that such transaction was speculative - " Whether the order of the Tribunal in annexures " C-1 " and " C-2 " constitute 'information' within the meaning of section 34(1)(b) so as to justify the assessment in this case being reopened ? " - In the premises, the question referred to this court must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue
-
1973 (5) TMI 21
Remuneration received by karta as director of a company - " Whether the Tribunal, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, was right in holding that the salary received by the assessee was the income of the Hindu joint family of which the assessee was the karta, and not his individual income ? "
-
1973 (5) TMI 20
Whether the protection granted u/s 54 of 1922 Act or section 137 of 1961 Act, for the assessment records by the repealed provisions continue after repeal ? – held yes - the protection available, would still be available to the documents produced for the assessment years relating to the period prior to the repeal of these provisions. Such documents cannot be summoned by a court
-
1973 (5) TMI 19
(1) Whether Tribunal was right in holding that in computing the net assets of W.H. Harton & Co. Ltd. for the purpose of determining the break-up value of its shares the sum of Rs. 61,800 being the amount of proposed dividend should be allowed as a deduction ? (2) Whether, Tribunal was legally justified in holding that the assessee was not the owner of 32,440 shares of Rohtas Industries Ltd. ? (3) If the answer to the question No. 2 is in the negative, then whether the Tribunal was justified in holding that in respect of the shares of Rohtas Industries Ltd., only a sum of Rs. 1,63,200 should be included in the net wealth of the assessee? "In the premises, the question No. (2) will have to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and in that view the question No. (3) does not arise. But we must make it clear that the assessee was the owner of the sum of Rs. 1,63,200 and the money belonged to the assessee. In any view of the matter, therefore, in respect of this money the assessee was the owner and it belonged to the assessee and it had been rightly included in the net wealth of the assessee
-
1973 (5) TMI 18
" (1) Whether amount paid to the workmen as bonus were expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business ? (2) Whether, amount paid towards the legal charges were expenditure laid out wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business ? (3) Whether the assessees are entitled to claim development rebate on railway sidings used by them for transporting their raw materials and finished goods ? " In this case, the very fact that the Indian Income-tax Rules enumerate railway sidings as coming within the definition of plant and machinery obviates the necessity of examining the question whether it would come within the definition of plant. As has been said already, the aforesaid Supreme Court decision makes it clear that it would come within such definition even if it had not been clearly enumerated under rule 8 - petitioner is entitled to claim development rebate on the railway sidings installed by the petitioner for transport of raw materials and finished goods
-
1973 (5) TMI 17
Transfer of case – jurisdiction of Income-tax Officer - "(i) Whether, as a matter of fact and in law, the Income-tax Officer, Special Circle, Ranchi, had jurisdiction or not ? (ii) If he had jurisdiction, whether the assessee's belief that he had no jurisdiction and his (assessee's) failure to file the return because of that erroneous belief was a sufficient cause for non-compliance with his obligation to file a return even after service of notice under section 22(2) read with section 34 of the Act ?"
-
1973 (5) TMI 16
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the income from the house properties at 53A and 53B, Gariahata Road, Calcutta, was rightly included in the total income of the assessee under section 16(3)(a)(iii) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?" - "Whether, on the facts and, in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal could in law uphold the assessments for the assessment years 1954-55 and 1955-56 on the notices under section 34(1)(a) with reference to the powers under section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ?" - both the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue
-
1973 (5) TMI 15
"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances, the Tribunal was right in holding that the composite rent received by the assessee from its tenants should be split up and the amount attributable to the property only should be assessed under section 9(1) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, while the amount attributable to the amenities provided by the assessee to the tenants should be assessed under section 12 of the said Act?" - question is, answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee
-
1973 (5) TMI 14
Appeal against best judgment assessment - "Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that in disposing of an appeal against an assessment under section 16(5), the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should confine himself only to the materials on record at the time of assessment, i.e. the previous assessment order?" - we must hold that the Tribunal was not right in holding that in disposing of an appeal against an assessment under section 16(5), the Appellate Assistant Commissioner should confine himself only to the materials on record. The question is, therefore, answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee
-
1973 (5) TMI 13
Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 - amounts set apart for payment of proposed dividend and taxes – whether it constitute “reserve” for the purpose of computation of capital under rule 1 of Schedule 2 of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963
-
1973 (5) TMI 12
Super Profits Tax Act, 1963 - amount set apart for discharge of specific and definite liability which was actually paid later – whether it amounts to reserve - question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee so far as items relating to bonus, excess provision for taxation and the excess provision for development reserve are concerned. As regards the dividend and the actual liability for income-tax, the question is answered against the assessee.
|