|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 83 Records
-
1975 (2) TMI 23 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Civil Procedure Code, Income Tax Act, Legal Representative ... ... ... ... ..... l representatives would stand very much in the way of the High Court answering the question referred to it. In other words, if Order XXII of the Code were applicable the High Court s jurisdiction would become infructuous for answering the question referred to it. In my view, therefore, the procedure prescribed under Order XXII of the Code could not be made applicable to a case of reference under section 256 of the Act. For the reasons mentioned above, I am clearly of the view that the death of an assessee in a case of a reference under section 256 of the Act, Order XXII of the Code has no application and, there is, thus, no abatement on account of the death of the assessee and non-substitution of the legal representative on the record. The objection made to this effect must, therefore, be overruled. In the result, I allow the application and direct the legal representative named in the petition to be substituted in place of the deceased assessee. S. K. CHOUDHURI J.--I agree.
-
1975 (2) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Gratuity Liability, Mercantile System, Provision For Gratuity, Supreme Court ... ... ... ... ..... h question of provision for gratuity which may be payable in future is concerned, we have found the judgments of the Supreme Court all consistent in the sense that such liability may be regarded as a certain liability existing in Praesenti, though payable in future. But on the other question posed by Mr. Joshi before us, viz., that such provision could not be allowed as a deduction by reason of the express provisions of section 36(1)(v) and section 40 read together with the Rules, which, according to him, constituted a bar on such amount being allowed as a deduction, we did not find an equally clear decision of the Supreme Court and as far as this aspect of the matter is concerned, it would seem to be a substantial question of law of general importance which is required to be decided by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, we certify that this case involves a substantial question of law of general importance which is required to be decided by the Supreme Court as indicated above.
-
1975 (2) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... d to be the property of the transferor in respect of the transfer rather than using the expression like of as belonging to that individual . But the form and style are the exclusive jurisdiction of Parliament itself. So long as there is no indication that the benefit under section 5(1)(iv) shall not be available to a case falling under section 4(1)(a), we cannot give any restricted interpretation and deny the benefit to the assessee. It is not necessary for us to refer to those decisions where the well-settled principle is that a fiction shall not be extended for more than the purpose for which it is created because in this case we are not extending the fiction beyond the purpose for which it was created, but in effect we give only effect to the fiction created and are not extending the same. We, therefore, answer the reference in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250. Reference answered in the negative.
-
1975 (2) TMI 20 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Trade Association ... ... ... ... ..... s admitted to be the assessee s income, but exemption is claimed because it arises out of assets held for charitable purpose and because of the provisions contained in the Act conferring such exemption. There is also another class of cases where a person may claim exemption of tax in respect of income spent on charitable purpose. These two classes of cases are cases of application of income. The instant case is not a case of application of income because the amount in question was never received by the assessee as its income. It is a case of diversion of the amount of collections through an overriding title before it became income in the assessee s hands. This principle has been enunciated by the Privy Council in Bijoy Singh Dudhuria v. Commissioner of Income-tax. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to the costs which we assess at Rs. 200. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1975 (2) TMI 19 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ether there was reasonable cause or not. If in the opinion of the authority there was reasonable cause, in that case, no penalty whatsoever may be imposed. However, if there was no reasonable cause, in that case, imposition of penalty is mandatory. The Appellate Tribunal, in our opinion, did not act erroneously in taking into consideration the prevailing departmental practice at that time in coming to the conclusion that there was reasonable cause for the assessee s failure to file a return within due date. As such, the question of existence or otherwise of a reasonable cause in the instant case would be a pure question of fact and not a question of law. We cannot be approached for requiring the Tribunal to refer to us questions of fact but only questions of law. Under the circumstances, we feel that this petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, under the circumstances, we direct that there shall be no order as to costs of these proceedings.
-
1975 (2) TMI 18 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Assessment Year, Income Tax Act, Income Tax Proceedings, Reassessment Proceedings, Res Judicata
-
1975 (2) TMI 17 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Coparcenary Property, Estate Duty Act, Original Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... n the same point and so he was not entitled to reopen the proceedings. These cases are distinguishable. In the present case the precise aspect of law on which the proceedings were sought to be reopened was neither canvassed nor was any opinion held or expressed by the Assistant Controller at the time of the original assessment. He, according to the finding of fact, came to know of that aspect because of research made subsequent to the original assessment. This is not a case of change of opinion. In our opinion, the Assistant Controller had jurisdiction to reassess under section 59(b) of the Estate Duty Act and our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The Controller of Estate Duty would be entitled to costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200. We, however, express no opinion on the merits of the question which, according to the decision of the Tribunal, will now be decided by the Zonal Appellate Controller.
-
1975 (2) TMI 16 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Income Tax Act, Original Assessment, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... been drawn in the course of the reassessment proceedings could well have been drawn before the original assessment was made. The primary facts on the basis of which proceedings under section 34(1)(a) have been initiated were already before the Income-tax Officer from sources other than the assessee itself but that, however, would not make the slightest difference in principle so far as the question of law is concerned. There is thus no substance in the contention of the learned standing counsel for the department that the finding of the Tribunal is in any way erroneous, much less perverse. In the result, therefore, I must answer the question referred in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the department and I would hold that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, proceedings under section 34(1)(a) of the Act were not initiated in accordance with law. In the circumstances of the case, I shall make no order as to costs. S. N. P. SINGH C.J.-I agree.
-
1975 (2) TMI 15 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Unclaimed Balances ... ... ... ... ..... assessee itself has chosen to treat these items as income of the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1957-58, it cannot be said that the income-tax authorities committed an error in accepting the statement of the assessee. We might mention here that a similar question was brought by the assessee before this court in respect of another year in Pioneer Consolidated Co. of India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax . There also varying amounts Iying in deposit with the assessee were credited to the profit and loss account. This court held that they had rightly been held to be the profits of the assessee for the assessment year in which they were appropriated to the profit and loss account. We therefore, find no mistake committed by the Income-tax Officer. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to the costs, which we assess at Rs. 200. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1975 (2) TMI 14 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Income Tax, Reassessment Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... ed by section 56(2) of the Estate Duty Act and the conditions specified in the order of the court while disposing of the application for grant of certificate. In the instant case, the applicant has not complied with the conditions imposed by the order of the civil court, on the fulfilment of which alone he was entitled to obtain the succession certificate. The applicant cannot be relieved from the said obligation which has been imposed in accordance with the provisions of law and the court cannot grant him a succession certificate unless and until he has furnished a copy of the application to the Controller and produced his clearance certificate in accordance with law. The impugned order of the lower court in refusing to issue the succession certificate does not suffer from any legal infirmity and does not call for interference. As a result, I affirm the order and dismiss the appeal. Since there is no representation on behalf of the State, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1975 (2) TMI 13 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Act, New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... mstances, it cannot be said that the existing business at Hazra Road was transferred to the Cossipore factory on the relevant date. Further, the cost of installation of the Cossipore factory far exceeded the value of the machinery that were later on transferred to the factory at Cossipore. No doubt, the type of goods were manufactured in both the factories for some time, but that by itself is of no consequence as said by this court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Indian Aluminium Co. Ltd. and by Khanna C.J. before whom the assessee maintained one account in respect of two units of its business, and the assessee before us has done the same thing for some time. In this view of the matter we are unable to accept the contentions of Mr. Pal, and, therefore, our answer to the question referred to this court by the Tribunal is in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. R. N. PYNE J.--I agree.
-
1975 (2) TMI 12 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Assessment Year, Income Tax Act, Income Tax Proceedings, Reassessment Proceedings, Res Judicata
-
1975 (2) TMI 11 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Adventure In The Nature Of Trade, Finding Of Fact ... ... ... ... ..... le transaction may constitute an adventure in the nature of trade but on the facts of the present case, it held that this was not so. In ITR No. 710 of 1972--Additional Commissioner of Income-tax v. B. N. Bhagi and Brothers 1977 106 ITR 359 (All) (decided on 5-12-1974) this court has held that purchase of a single compensation claim, which was later on utilised for the purchase of a building for the assessee s residence did not constitute an adventure in the nature of trade. The facts of the present case are in pari materia with that of Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax v. B. N. Bhagi and Brothers 1977 106 ITR 359 (All). The finding that the transaction in question was not an adventure in the nature of trade, in the circumstances of the case, appears to be one of fact. In view of our above conclusions, we answer the question in the affirmative and against the department. The assessee is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200. Counsel s fee is assessed at the same figure.
-
1975 (2) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Trading Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... n can alter its legal position. Those sums were the trading receipts of the assessee and their accrual and realisation both took place in 2004 and 2005 R.N. years. It is true that those sums were not taxed in the assessment years of those years, but they cannot be included in the assessment year under reference, for they are not the trading receipts of the assessee in this assessment year. No doubt, those sums have escaped assessment in earlier years but they did not form part of the income of the assessee in the assessment year under consideration and, therefore, the revenue authorities were not entitled to assess those sums as the income of the previous year, namely, 2011 R.N., of the assessee and hence the decision of the Tribunal, in our opinion, is incontestable. In this view of the matter, our answer to the question is in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not make any order as to costs. R. N. PYNE J.--I agree.
-
1975 (2) TMI 9 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
A Firm, A Partner ... ... ... ... ..... of the business, but he could certainly be a sleeping partner in such business. Therefore, it is not possible to hold that merely because there was a clause in the partnership deed empowering Shri Jagdishrai, advocate, to act on behalf of the firm or to actively participate in the business of the firm, the partnership itself would be rendered illegal. In this view of the matter, there can be no doubt that the petitioner-firm was entitled to registration for the assessment year 1959-60. As a result of the discussion aforesaid, we would answer the question as follows That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee-firm was entitled to registration under section 26A of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for the assessment year, 1959-60. Let the case be returned to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal to take further action in accordance with the opinion recorded by us above. Further, we direct that there shall be no order as to costs of the present proceedings.
-
1975 (2) TMI 8 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
A Partner, Change In Constitution Of Firm, Partnership Firm, Two Partners ... ... ... ... ..... and two separate assessments had to be made under section 188 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The above controversy has been recently decided by a Full Bench of this court in Dahi Laxmi Dal Factory v. Income-tax Officer, Sitapur 1976 103 ITR 517 (All) FB . The view taken in this case by the majority is that where a firm is dissolved either by agreement of partners or by operation of law and another firm takes over the business that will be a case of succession governed by section 188 of the Act even though some of the partners of the two firms are common. We are bound by this decision of the Full Bench. Following the same, we answer the question mentioned above in the affirmative. We hold that the Tribunal was right in taking the view that the present case was covered by section 188 of the Income-tax Act. For the reasons given above, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the department. No order as to costs. Counsel s fee is, however, assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1975 (2) TMI 7 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Revised Return, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... ght to be avoided. The Tribunal took the view that the amending Act was not retrospective and further that the penalty was imposable on the basis of default committed in the original returns. The question raised in this reference is covered by a decision of this court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Rain Achal Ram Sewak 1977 106 ITR 144 (All), wherein it has been held that the relevant return for the purposes of penalty proceedings is the original return filed by the assessee and not the return filed subsequently in pursuance to a notice under section 148 of the Act. As at present advised, we see no good ground for taking a contrary view. This being so, penalty was imposable at the rate as prevailing in the year in question, and not at the rate introduced by the Amending Act of 1968. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and against the department. The assessee is entitled to his costs which we assess at Rs. 200. Counsel s fee is assessed at the same figure.
-
1975 (2) TMI 6 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
A Firm, A Partner ... ... ... ... ..... re working and the manufacturing process is being carried on without the aid of power. We are unable to subscribe to this view. In our opinion, the number of persons working in a cottage industry is immaterial and the fact that power is used is also immaterial. The essential ingredient of a cottage industry is that the industry must be carried on by workers or members of their family at their houses. Number of workers may exceed ten or twenty and it is permissible that the workers may use power as often is done in these days where electricity is available. Small lathe and drilling machines are worked by power. But this fact does not change the nature of industry, if it is cottage industry otherwise, as explained above. We therefore, agree with the conclusion of the Tribunal, but for different reasons. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to the costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1975 (2) TMI 5 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Unclaimed Balances ... ... ... ... ..... at the point up to which I have quoted it I should have concurred with the contention of the surveyor. But the rule does not stop there. In order to be a prohibited reduction it must be sought to be made on an annuity or other annual payment payable out of such profits or gains . The underlining is ours and the portion underlined indicates that if there had not been the words out of such profits or gains occurring in the section, such payments would not have been taken into account in computing the income. We have to understand s. 40A(3) in the same manner. The amounts in question cannot be taken into account in computing the profits and gains. We answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the department and against the assessee. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1975 (2) TMI 4 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust ... ... ... ... ..... to the trustees. The objects of the trust, in our judgment, were covered by the definition of charitable purpose given in the I.T. Act. The income from these properties was exempt from tax in accordance with the provisions of the I.T. Acts. In the result, our answer to the various questions referred to us is as follows Assessee s Reference I.T.R. No. 18 of 1973. Question No. 1 No, in favour of the assessee and against the department. Question No. 2 No, in favour of the assessee and against the department. Revenue s Reference I.T.R. No. 715 of 1972. Question No. 1 Yes, in favour of the assessee and against the department. Question No. 2 No, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Question No. 3 Yes, in favour of the assessee and against the department. Question No. 4 No, in favour of the assessee and against the department. Question No. 5 No, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200.
|
