Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 88 of 88 Records
-
1975 (10) TMI 8 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Bonus Shares, High Court, Income Tax Act, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... assessee may be express or constructive. It is not always necessary to serve the assessee with a written notice if he is aware of the rectification proceedings and the matter is discussed with him and he is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The matter is directly covered by the decision of their Lordships in Maharana Mills Pvt. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer 1959 36 ITR 350 (SC). There the Income-tax Officer recomputed the written down value which resulted in reduction of the unabsorbed depreciation to be carried forward. There was an enhancement of assessment and this was done, as here, after the matter was discussed with the assessee. In those circumstances, their Lordships held that the requirements of the proviso were amply met, and the order of rectification could not be held to be invalid. That precisely is the case here. The second point must, therefore, also fail. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 100, if certified.
-
1975 (10) TMI 7 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Search And Seizure ... ... ... ... ..... e clearly distinguishable. The observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Gemini Leather Stores v. Income-tax Officer 1975 100 ITR 1(SC) do fortify the view taken by the Division Bench of this court in Hira Lal Sibal s case 1976 103 ITR 606 (Punj), which we are bound to follow. For the reasons mentioned above, we allow these petitions, quash the warrant of authorisation on the basis of which the search of the petitioner s premises was conducted and also bold that since there was no basis for initiating action under section 132(1) of the Act, it was not open to the authorised officer to hold or to continue with any enquiry against the petitioners under section 132(5) of the Act. An order under section 132(5) of the Act, if any, passed by the Income-tax Officer against any of the petitioners shall also stand quashed. The money, jewellery and other articles recovered from the possession of the petitioners will be returned to them preferably within three weeks.
-
1975 (10) TMI 6 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... e any claim for deduction under section 84, but the facts and the circumstances of the case are otherwise here as the assessee has made assessable profits. Mr. Sen then cited the case of Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer 1965 16 STC 607 AIR 1966 SC 12. This is a sales tax matter and the Supreme Court considered section 5(2)(a)(ii) of the Bengal Finance (Sales Tax) Act (6 of 1941) and Bengal Sales Tax Rules, 1941, rule 27A. The question before the Supreme Court was when a dealer is entitled to claim exemption from sales tax ? I do not think that the decision of the Supreme Court is applicable on the question referred to us as an entirely different section of a different Act has to be construed by us. In that view of the matter which I have expressed, the question referred to this court must be answered in the affirmative and against the revenue. We return our answer accordingly. Parties will bear their own costs of the reference. DEB J.--I agree.
-
1975 (10) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Original Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... Appellate Assistant Commissioner should not have followed the said decision of the Supreme Court. The Tribunal has, however, rejected these contentions and has dismissed these appeals. Mr. Ajit Sen Gupta, the learned counsel for the revenue, has repeated the above contentions before us, but we are not impressed by them. The fresh assessment orders have wiped away the previous assessment orders. The tax has to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Capital gains can only be assessed under section 12B of the Act. It is the duty of the revenue authorities to comply with the provisions of the Act and, hence, the appellate authorities were justified in allowing the assessee to take the said new plea, for those sale proceeds were not revenue but capital receipts. In this view of the matter, we return our answer in the affirmative and against the revenue. As no one has appeared for the assessee we do not propose to make any order as to costs. HAZRA J.---I agree.
-
1975 (10) TMI 4 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Appeal Before AAC, Appeal To AAC, Best Judgment Assessment, Income Tax Act, Natural Justice, Writ Petition
-
1975 (10) TMI 3 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Company ... ... ... ... ..... ikri, as he then was, speaking for the court, while negativing the contention urged on behalf of the State that expenses claimed for the payment of interest on monies borrowed were personal expenses, observed as under Personal expenses would include expenses on the person of the assessee or to satisfy his personal needs such as clothes, food, etc., or purposes not related to the business for which the deduction is claimed. In our opinion, the need of the managing director of the assessee company to have the services of his wife who was not a qualified or trained nurse either to attend on him for his indifferent health or to prepare food for him since he happened to be a strict vegetarian would not entitle the assessee-company to claim the proportionate expenses as business expenses. The result is that we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. The assessee-company shall pay the costs of this reference to the Commissioner of Income-tax.
-
1975 (10) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Minor was admitted to the benefits of partnership - Rule that where the shares in the profits are unequal, the losses must be shared in the same proportion as the profits if there is no agreement as to how the losses are to be apportioned, does not also apply to this case. In this case even if the adult partners bear the losses in proportion to their respective shares in the profits, the amount of loss in the minor's share would still remain undistributed
-
1975 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Assessee throws self-acquired property into the family hotchpot - income even after the property was thrown into the family hotchpot, the income would be chargeable to income-tax as his individual income and not that of the family
|