|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 73 Records
-
1974 (12) TMI 33 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Entertainment Tax ... ... ... ... ..... tervene if it appears that the fact-finding authority has acted without any evidence or upon a view of the facts, which could not reasonably be entertained or the facts found are such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law would have come to the determination in question. Venkatarama Ayyar J. preferred to rest his decision in the last preceding case on the ground that the finding of the Tribunal that high denomination notes of the value of Rs. 30,000 represented concealed profits was hot supported by any evidence and was, in consequence, erroneous in point of law and liable to be set aside. Again, in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Greaves Cotton and Co. Ltd., their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that a finding of fact may be defective in law if there is, no evidence to support it or if the finding is unreasonable or perverse. The reference is answered in the negative. S. M. F. ALI C.J.--I agree. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1974 (12) TMI 32 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Mistake Apparent From Record, Retrospective Effect ... ... ... ... ..... of clause (1) thereof have a mere right to be maintained out of the income of the trust fund. Their shares in the income of the trust property, in my opinion, cannot be held to be determinate. It has to be held to be indeterminate. I would, accordingly, answer the two questions referred to this court as follows Question 1 The Tribunal is not right in infusing the idea of tenancy-in-common of the Dayabhaga school of Hindu law in the instant trust deed the same has to be interpreted on its own terms and provisions. Question 2 The Tribunal has not rightly held that the shares of the beneficiaries were determinate and, therefore, the first proviso to section 41(1) of the Act was not applicable the shares of the beneficiaries named in sub-clause (i) of clause (1) of the deed were indeterminate and the first proviso to section 41(1) of the Act was applicable to the case. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. LALIT MOHAN SHARMA J.--I agree.
-
1974 (12) TMI 31 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ct finding out the new sources of the assessee. Therefore, it was submitted on behalf of the revenue that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was really directing a new source to be taxed or a direction on the Income-tax Officer to tax the new sources of the assessee. What indeed the Appellate Assistant Commissioner directed is to find out whether the explanation given by the assessee about the sale could be accepted or not and whether there was any income of the assessee from the undisclosed sources or not. It is in that light that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner gave the aforesaid direction. Therefore, we are unable to accept the contention on behalf of the revenue that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had assumed the jurisdiction which he did not possess. In view of the above, both these questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. R. N. PYNE J.-I agree. Questions answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (12) TMI 30 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Purchase Tax, Supreme Court, Validating Act ... ... ... ... ..... o the Government. In this view, we get support from Kohinoor Mills Co. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. In that case, the wages were payable by the mill but were not claimed. Their recovery had become barred by limitation. It was observed by the learned Division Bench that the debt subsisted notwithstanding that its recovery was barred by limitation. It was further observed that there was in such a case no cessation of trading liability within the meaning of section 19(2A) and that the amount of such wages cannot be added to the income. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we hold that, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in holding that a sum of Rs. 39,489 was not assessable in the hands of the firm under section 41(1) of the Act. Thus we decide the reference in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the circumstances of this case, however, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. MAN MOHAN SINGH GUJRAL J.-I agree.
-
1974 (12) TMI 29 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Cross Gift, Two Partners ... ... ... ... ..... ence to be considered in conjunction with other evidence to determine the validity of the gifts. There is no suggestion that the interests which were credited in the account of the minor donees were fictitious entries and these interests were not paid to the minors or were not credited in their account. It is true that the donees were all minors and as such their accounts had to be operated on their behalf by their guardians. But that does not militate in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case against the validity of the gifts. In this back-ground if the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the gifts were valid, it is not possible to say that the Tribunal took an erroneous view of the law. In the aforesaid view of the matter we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in the view taken and the question referred to this court must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. PYNE J.-I agree.
-
1974 (12) TMI 28 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Cash Credits, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... ccepted the explanation offered by the third parties with regard to their sources of money, in part at least, there was no material for the Tribunal to hold that the assessee had not discharged the onus, and the finding to that effect must be held to be without any evidence and hence wholly illegal, and conclusions drawn perverse. For the foregoing reasons, I would answer the first question referred to us in the affirmative and hold that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee discharged the onus within the meaning of section 68 of the Act, for the cash credits. As a necessary corollary, the second question also must be answered in favour of the assessee and against the department and it must be held that the Tribunal was not justified in law to maintain the addition of Rs. 15,000 as the assessee s income from undisclosed sources. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Hearing fee assessed at rupees one hundred only. S. N. P. SINGH C.J.-I agree.
-
1974 (12) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Capital Loss ... ... ... ... ..... urt in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Asiatic Textiles Ltd. This decision of the Supreme Court also refers to an earlier decision of the privy council in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Williamson Diamonds Ltd.2 as also to an earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gangadhar Banerji and Co. (P.) Ltd. It has been laid down in Asiatic Textiles case that capital loss, if established, is one of the matters relevant to the question whether the payment of, a dividend or a larger dividend than that declared by the company would be reasonable. Mr. Joshi on behalf of the revenue also fairly stated that the matter was concluded against him by reason of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above. In view of the settled position of law, I would answer the question posed in this refer ence before us in the negative and against the revenue. VIMADALAL J.--I agree. By the Court Question answered in the negative. No order as to the costs of the reference.
-
1974 (12) TMI 26 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Criminal Prosecution, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... f incurring the expenditure. But it must be observed that a liability imposed upon the assessee for infraction of law or penalty imposed upon the assessee for infraction of law cannot be allowed as expenditure incurred in the course of the carrying on of the business, because that will be contrary to public policy. Of the sum of Rs. 17,000, it appears from the records that Rs. 14, 057 were expenses actually incurred in defending these persons and a sum of Rs. 3,000 was fine for violation of the law. The said sum cannot be allowed as deduction. But the sum of Rs. 14,057, in our opinion, should be allowed. In the premises we answer the question in the affirmative by stating that the assessee was entitled to deduction of Rs. 14,057 as expenditure in relation to criminal proceeding against the officers of the assessee in computing the income of the business of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, each party will bear and pay its own costs. PYNE J.-- I agree.
-
1974 (12) TMI 25 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Authorities, Proof On Revenue ... ... ... ... ..... ely, question No. 5, which it is admitted by the counsel for the department also includes the other two questions, namely, questions Nos. 3 and 4. In view of the aforesaid reasons, in our opinion, the following questions of law arise in the present case (1) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in not admitting the ground of appeal to the effect that Uchanti bahi business was an independent one ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal did not give proper weight to the Uchanti bahi statement procured from the Excise and Taxation Department ? (3) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in law in, levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) ? For the reasons recorded above, we accept this petition and direct the Tribunal to refer the above mentioned questions of law to this court. In the circumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1974 (12) TMI 24 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
A Firm, Estate Duty, Legal Representative ... ... ... ... ..... other hand, the finding is that some part of it must have belonged to his wife as stridhan. Jewellery normally is possessed by womenfolk. Since the deceased migrated from one country to another he must have taken the entire jewellery of his wife with him, as he was the head of the family. The fact that he brought jewellery along with his wife and children will not necessarily mean that the jewellery was his personal property. In our opinion in the absence of any proper detail the authorities were in error in assuming that the entire lot of jewellery he brought with him must have belonged to the deceased personally. The addition of Rs. 35,000 under this head was, in our opinion, not justified. Our answer to the first question is in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. Our answer to the second question is in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. In view of the divided success the parties will bear their own costs.
-
1974 (12) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income, Income Tax, Interest On Borrowed Capital, Interest Paid By Partner, Share Income
-
1974 (12) TMI 22 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Mistake Apparent From Record, Retrospective Effect ... ... ... ... ..... oned by the High Court it could be argued that it would have this effect but we have to bear in mind that this is not a case of fiction created by the statute. It is a question of relating back certain events by the amalgamation by agreement between the parties. What effect on the relation this would have by the sanction of court is a question which is not free from the mischief of two possible views. In this connection, we may refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Keshav Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax. It is not necessary for us to decide which of the two views is the correct view but we are of the opinion that the issue is debatable. On this ground section 154 cannot be resorted to. In the premises, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was correct in its conclusion. Accordingly, the question referred to this court is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Each party will pay and bear its own costs. R. N. PYNE J.-I agree.
-
1974 (12) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... ecision dealt with different problems, it is not necessary for us to refer to the said decision. In the aforesaid view of the matter it appears to us that the view taken by the Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner cannot be sustained. In the instant case, the accumulated profit has been determined at Rs. 18,067.57. The loan which the present assessee took from the company was Rs. 13,385. In the premises, the said loan was less than the accumulated profit. That being so, to the extent of accumulated profit the entirety of the loan, that is to say, Rs. 13,385, would be dividend assessable under section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in the hands of the assessee. We answer, therefore, by saying that, in the facts of this case, the sum of Rs. 13,385 would be assessable as dividend under section 2(6A)(e) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, in the hands of the assessee. In the facts of this case, there will be no order as to costs. R. N. PYNE J.-I agree.
-
1974 (12) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
House Property, Income Tax Act, Portuguese Civil Code ... ... ... ... ..... in the Portuguese Civil Code do not contravene any requirement of section 26 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal was, therefore, right in the view which it took that section 26 applied, and the question referred to us must be answered against the Commissioner. S. K. DESAI J.--- I agree and have nothing to add. BY THE COURT.-- We answer the question referred to this court as follows . On the facts of the case, and having regard to the relevant provisions of the Portuguese Civil Code and article 10 of the Commercial Code, the respective half shares of the husband and wife in the income from the house property which is the property of the communion of the husband and wife married according to the custom of Goa, should be assessed separately in equal shares in the hands of each of them, and not in the hands of the body of individuals of the communion of husband and wife, for the relevant assessment year. The Commissioner must pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1974 (12) TMI 19 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Flat Rate, Levy Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... of Income-tax v. Kedar Nath Ram Nath 1977 106 ITR 172 (All) and Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Swatantra Confectionery Works 1976 104 ITR 291 (All). Both these cases are not applicable to this case. In both of them the Tribunal had, as a matter of law, held that in the case where income is estimated by application of a flat rate to the turnover no question of penalty under section 271(1) would arise. This court held that no such legal presumption could be raised. The question depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. This court directed the Tribunal to apply its mind to the facts of the case and find whether there was gross negligence or wilful default or fraud on the part of the assessee. In the present case the Tribunal has gone on facts. It has not applied any presumption of law. Our answer to the question referred is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee shall get its costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1974 (12) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Entertainment Tax ... ... ... ... ..... a mere windfall which, as already stated above, must mean a windfall in regard to its very nature and not in regard to its extent or quantum. Applying that definition to the receipt of the amount of Rs. 10,67,212 by the assessee in the present case, though the said amount did come in from a definite source, it was not a return expected by the assessee for the labour, and/or skill bestowed, and/or capital invested by him, but was, in my opinion, in the nature of a mere windfall . I, therefore, agree with my brother Desai, that it is not income . Though called an exemption from entertainment duty, it did not really have the character of an exemption, but was in the nature of a prize, though its computation was on the basis of the entertainment duty paid by the public. BY THE COURT Question No. 1.---In the negative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2.---Also in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner must pay the assessee s costs of the reference.
-
1974 (12) TMI 17 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Firm Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... ges in that case held that By the mere trick of opening two accounts, one in the name of the joint family of K.Venkataratnam and another in the name of K.Venkataratnam as a partner, and transferring the capital investment to the joint family account, it cannot be contended that what was once capital has become now the investment made by the joint family. If really the Hindu undivided families were creditors to the firm there was no reason why there should be two accounts and the interest paid to the partners should be transferred to the accounts of the respective Hindu undivided families. We, therefore, hold that section 40(b) is attracted and interest paid by the firm to the accounts of the Hindu undivided families is not deductible under that provision. In the result, the questions referred to us in both the cases are answered in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessees. No costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 (rupees two hundred and fifty only) in each.
-
1974 (12) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, In The Nature, Legal Expenses, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... or in which particular year the company became aware of the non-existence of a particular plant. The Tribunal has, in paragraph 22 of its order dated 2nd June, 1964, rightly stressed the method of accounting followed by the assessee-company and has come to the conclusion that the method could not be said to be unreasonable even if a better method could, perhaps, be visualised. I see nothing wrong in that view of the Tribunal, and, in my opinion, the allowing of this deduction by the Tribunal cannot be said to be against any provisions of law, having regard, particularly, to section 13 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, to which I have already referred. DESAI J.--I agree and have nothing to add. BY THE COURT.--We answer the questions referred to us as follows Question No. 1.--In the affirmative. Question No. 2.--In the affirmative in regard to both the amounts. Question No. 3.--In the affirmative. The Commissioner must pay to the assessee-company the costs of this reference.
-
1974 (12) TMI 15 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Dissolution Of Firm ... ... ... ... ..... Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 10,937 was not profit arising out of an adventure in the nature of trade, but was receipt of a casual and non-recurring nature ? It is not disputed that the assessee made a single transaction of purchase of these claims. He did not sell it as such. He utilised the claims for purchase of a building for his use. From these facts the inference that the intention of the assessee was not to deal with such claims as a matter of business, cannot be said to be without any material. On this finding, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the receipt was of a casual and non-recurring nature and not a profit from a business adventure was eminently justified. In the result we answer the question 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. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1974 (12) TMI 14 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Industrial Undertaking, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... uld not be denied relief under section 15C if it is otherwise entitled to the same. Applying the approach commended by this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gaekwar Foam and Rubber Co. Ltd. 1959 35 ITR 662 (Bom) and reiterated in Capsulation Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income- tax 1973 91 ITR 566 (Bom) and respectfully agreeing with the approach of the Delhi High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ganga Sugar Corporation Ltd. 1973 92 ITR 173 (Delhi), I am of opinion that the question posed for our decision at the instance of the Commissioner, to be found in para. 6 of the statement of the case, must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. VIMADALAL J.--I agree and have nothing to add. BY THE COURT The question in para. 6 of the statement of case is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee the question in para. 7 is answered in the negative and against the assessee. Parties will bear their own costs of this reference.
|
