|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 154 Records
-
1976 (11) TMI 54 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... land certainly the respondent does not own the land. Nor does he possess or enjoy the land as a tenant or mortgagee in possession or as maintenance holder, because, admittedly, he is a trespasser on the poramboke land to whom B memos have been issued under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Encroachment Act, 1905. Consequently, the respondent herein cannot be said to be a person coming within the scope of section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act as defined in section 2(q) of the Act and, therefore, the income derived by the respondent by his unauthorised occupation of the poramboke land cannot be subjected to tax under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Income-tax Act, 1955. Therefore, the conclusion of the Tribunal does not call for any interference and the tax revision cases which relate to different years giving rise to the same question are dismissed. Since the respondent is not represented before the court, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1976 (11) TMI 53 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... poor s case 1966 60 ITR 74 (SC) are attracted to the case in hand. Mahendra Kumar Agrawalla s case 1976 103 ITR 688 (Pat), in my view, has correctly determined the law on the point. In view of what has been said and discussed above agreeing with the decision in Mahendra Kumar Agrawalla s case 1976 103 ITR 688 (Pat), I am to hold that there is no prohibition in section 4 of the new Act to restrain the assessing authority to proceed against the firm which is a taxable entity in respect of the fact that two of its partners had been separately assessed in respect of their share of the income from the partnership business. The position that once the income of an entity has been assessed and taxed in the hands of other taxable entities referred to in section 3 of the old Act no tax could be levied on the first entity cannot prevail under the new Act. The reference is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. A. S. BAINS J.-I agree.
-
1976 (11) TMI 52 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Of Company, Chargeable Profits, Computation Of Capital, Depreciation Reserve ... ... ... ... ..... local dealers and thereby becomes the owner thereof and subsequently exports the goods but it exports the goods in the names of the various persons from whom it purchases the goods, on account of and at the risk of the assessee itself. Consequently, it is clear that though the exports are made by the dealers from whom the assessee purchases the goods in India, those dealers acted merely as agents of the assessee for the exports in question and it was the assessee which was really the exporter in respect of the goods. Consequently, the 1 per cent., whether it is called by the name of commission or discount, the assessee earned on the export of the goods in question will certainly constitute profits derived from the export of hides and skins. As a matter of fact the very question referred to the High Court assumes this. Under these circumstances, we answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1976 (11) TMI 51 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Adequate Consideration, Immovable Property, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... er clause (a) or clause (b) of sec tion 147. It was in those circumstances that the Supreme Court said We are of the opinion that if only he (the Commissioner) had read the report (of the ITO) carefully, he could never have come to the conclusion on the material before him that this is a fit case to issue notice under section 148. Hence, the observations of the Supreme Court in Chhugamal Rajpal s case 1971 79 ITR 603 (SC) cannot, in our opinion, be understood as laying down that the Commissioner should write an elaborate order setting out the reasons for according permission to the ITO to issue notice under section 148. As the report of the ITO disclosed that he had sufficient materials to reopen the assessment, it cannot be said that the Commissioner had mechanically accorded permission without applying his mind merely because he did not give reasons for it in his order. All the contentions urged by Shri Gulati are rejected. In the result we dismiss this petition with costs.
-
1976 (11) TMI 50 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Wholly And Exclusively ... ... ... ... ..... e Commissioner at prescribed rates. The assessee who packed and supplied less than the minimum specified quantity of cloth had to pay to the Textile Commissioner certain amounts which he claimed as deductible expenditure. The Gujarat High Court accepted the claim of the assessee. They held that there was no question that the amount was paid by way of penalty or that the amount paid was akin to penalty. There was no infraction of the law. In fact the very scheme of the law was that the assessee should have option to adopt one of three courses. By adopting one course, he could not be said to have committed any infraction of law. It is clear that, on the facts of the case, no other conclusion was possible. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are clearly of the opinion that the amount of Rs. 4,300 paid by the assessee by way of penalty to the East Punjab Motion Pictures Association was not allowable as revenue expenditure. The reference is answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1976 (11) TMI 49 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... iew, during the accounting year in question, the assessee did not incur any expenditure at all and, therefore, the question of deducting any such expenditure does not arise. If, on the other hand, the claim of the assessee is to be on the basis of any write-off, such a claim can be allowed, only when the write-off is in relation to a trading transaction, where the money due to the assessee could not be recovered and, therefore, had to be written off. No such consideration applied to the present case. Under these circumstances, we are clearly of the opinion that the authorities below, including the Tribunal, were right in holding that the assessee was not entitled to any deduction of this amount. The result is that we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee, as far as the amount of Rs. 12,039 is concerned, and in the affirmative and against the assessee so far as the amount of Rs. 20,550 is concerned. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1976 (11) TMI 48 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Of Company, Chargeable Profits, Computation Of Capital, Depreciation Reserve ... ... ... ... ..... companies making credit facilities available to the Indian concerns, because this is a concession given to non-resident companies which have not made the prescribed arrangements for the declaration and payment of dividends within India. If there is any rationale for conferring such a benefit only on non-resident companies which have not made the prescribed arrangements for the declaration and payment of dividends within India, it is quite possible that such benefit was sought to be conferred with a view to make such non-resident companies making credit facilities available to Indian undertakings or Indian concerns. However, we do not propose to hazard any guess as to the actual object of the particular provision and merely content ourselves with construing the provision as it is. In view of this, we answer the second question referred to this court in the negative and against the assessee. Since the parties have succeeded and lost in part, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1976 (11) TMI 47 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking, Profits And Gains ... ... ... ... ..... because his reasons to believe were covered by section 147(a). Of course, the breaking of a hundi racket on an all-India basis cannot have any rational connection with the loans to the assessee but the confessional statements of the creditors may have. That depends on whether the confessional statements are related in any manner to the loans to the assessee. That information is not available in the order of the Tribunal out of which the reference arises or in the statement of the case submitted to us by the Tribunal. Therefore, the only answer which we can give to the question referred to us is to say that the Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the reopening of the assessment under section 147(a) if the confessional statements referred to in paragraph 5 of its order were in any manner related to the loans to the assessee otherwise, not. The reference is answered accordingly. The Appellate Tribunal will now deal with the matter in the light of our answer. No costs.
-
1976 (11) TMI 46 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... any business or profession or assessed at a proportion or otherwise on the basis of any such profits or gains, have also been excluded. There is no express exclusion in respect of interest paid on borrowed sum for payment of advance taxes. This shows that such interest is deductible. (5) Section 80V of the Act specifically makes provisions for deduction of such interest. In view of the series of decisions quoted above, we are unable to entertain the arguments of Dr. Pal on the facts and in the circumstances of this case. It seems to us that section 80V was introduced into the Act to meet the difficulties pointed out by the judgments referred to above. The interest claimed as deduction may now be allowed but in the state of law, as it existed at the relevant time, this interest could not be allowed. The Tribunal, in our opinion, has come to the correct conclusion. Our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative. There will be no order as to costs. DEB J.-I agree.
-
1976 (11) TMI 45 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 14 ITR 106 were not cited. Moreover, the Kerala case reported in 1965 58 ITR 618 is on different facts, whereas facts of the Madras case reported in 1969 71 ITR 707 and the facts of the instant case before us, as already stated, are substantially the same. Therefore, the instant case is covered by the Madras case reported in 1969 71 ITR 707. And that apart, we do not find any reason to differ from the Madras High Court on the interpretation of the corresponding section of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, which is in pari materia with the present section of the Income-tax Act, 1961. We are also of opinion that unless the machinery or plant is used exclusively for the purpose of the assessee s business no development rebate under section 33(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can be allowed. Accordingly, we return our answer to the question in the negative and in favour of the revenue. The parties shall pay and bear their own costs of this reference. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1976 (11) TMI 44 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Accounting Year, Assessed Income, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... and the income assessed has been due to two reasons, namely, (i) the raising of the percentage, and (ii) the inclusion of the income of the assessee from the partnership firm for the first time. Neither the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner nor the Tribunal has come to any definite finding to the effect that the Explanation is really attracted in the instant case. Whatever that may be, if there is some doubt in regard to that, that will go to the benefit of the assessee. Since the Tribunal s definite finding on consideration of the materials on record is that not showing the income from the firm was an inadvertent mistake and omission on the part of the assessee, the Tribunal cannot be unjustified in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the result, we answer the question of law referred in the affirmative and against the department. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. N. IBOTOMBI SINGH J.-I agree.
-
1976 (11) TMI 43 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Adequate Consideration, Break Up Method, Gift Tax, Market Value, Unquoted Shares ... ... ... ... ..... rder, the Tribunal did not consider this aspect at all, but chose to make certain general observations as to what would constitute an adequacy or inadequacy of consideration and what would be the effect of such adequacy or inadequacy of consideration in the field of contracts. While so holding, the Tribunal committed an error in thinking that the shares were acquired by the assessee at Rs. 50 per share, and, therefore, the transfer of shares at Rs. 75 per share could not be said to be for inadequate consideration, forgetting that the Tribunal itself in the earlier portion of its order referred to the fact that the cost of the acquisition of these shares by the assessee was Rs. 60 per share. Under these circumstances, we are clearly of the opinion that the Tribunal was in error in holding that section 4(1)(a) of the Act did not apply to the case on hand. Therefore, we answer the second question also in the negative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1976 (11) TMI 42 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy Of Penalty, Registered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... appreciate this argument. The language of sub-section (2) of section 271 is couched in the widest possible language and it has got the overriding effect in view of the express provisions contained therein, namely, notwithstanding anything contained in the other provisions of this Act . Consequently, whether this sub-section finds a place as a separate sub-section or finds a place as a part of section 271(1), the language is clear and categorical and applies to the present case. That is the view which we have taken in our judgment dated April 1, 1976, in Subramaniam and Brothers v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1977 106 ITR 508 (Mad) and in our judgment dated September 13, 1976, in Essorde Industrial v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1977 110 ITR 298 (Mad). Under these circumstances the conclusion of the Tribunal is absolutely unexceptionable and, therefore, we answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1976 (11) TMI 41 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Claiming Depreciation, Depreciation And Development Rebate, Priority Industry, Unabsorbed Depreciation
-
1976 (11) TMI 40 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Employed, Capital Or Revenue, Collaboration Agreement, Computation Of Capital, Deduction From Profits And Gains, Foreign Company, Industrial Undertaking, Initial Depreciation, Revenue Expenditure, Written Down Value
-
1976 (11) TMI 39 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Payments Not Deductible, Raw Material ... ... ... ... ..... the expression expenditure in section 40A(2) and it may be disallowed if it is excessive or unreasonable and if it is made to any of the persons specified in clause (b) of section 40A(2). There is no reason to assume that payment for goods falls within the mischief of the expression expenditure in section 40A(2) but not within the mischief of the same expression in section 40A(3). We are, therefore, satisfied that the payments made for purchase of goods fall within the meaning of the expression expenditure occurring in section 40A(3). Our view is supported by the decision of the Allahabad High Court in U. P. Hardware Store v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1976 104 ITR 664 (All), the decision of the Orissa High Court in Sajowanlal Jaiswal v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1976 103 ITR 706 (Orissa) and the decision of the Kerala High Court in P. R. Textiles v. Commissioner of Income-tax as yet unreported. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative. No costs.
-
1976 (11) TMI 38 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Collaboration Agreement, Fees For Technical Services, Foreign Company, Indian Company ... ... ... ... ..... clause (6). Once that point of view is accepted it is impossible to find fault with the approach of the department or the conclusions of the Tribunal that some part of these payments must be properly regarded as income having accrued in India. As a matter of fact, it has been found that the assessee-company had deputed certain technicians to help the Indian company in 1959, 1961, 1962 and 1963. We are, therefore, in agreement with the conclusion of the Tribunal upholding the claim of the revenue that part of the payments represented income which was rightly deemed to accrue or arise to the assessees-company in the taxable territories. At stated earlier, the apportionment thereof at the rate of 40 made by the departmental authorities was not challenged before the Tribunal and, therefore, we are not concerned with the same. In the result, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. The assessee will pay to the revenue the costs of this reference.
-
1976 (11) TMI 37 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Or Revenue Receipt, Income From Property ... ... ... ... ..... granting the monthly tenancies to them. But, here again, no material has been brought on record to show that the construction of the present building, from the tenants of which he received premium, was a part of his business as a builder or promoter. Moreover, even the department did not seek to include this item of Rs. 54,000 in the assessee s total income under section 10 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, but the only attempt was to show that it was his income from other sources under section 12 of the Act. As we have said above, considering the case under section 12 of the Act it is difficult to come to the conclusion that the amount of Rs. 54,000 that was received by the assessee from his tenants by way of premium for the grant of monthly tenancies to the tenants would be receipt in the nature of income or revenue. In the result, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The department will pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1976 (11) TMI 36 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Act Of 1922, Act Of 1961, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Assessment Order, Income Tax, Provisional Assessment, Regular Assessment
-
1976 (11) TMI 35 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Voluntary Liquidation ... ... ... ... ..... e was to be effective as from December 19, 1959, it is clear that the relevant date would be December 19, 1959, on which date the shares in Madura Mills could be said to have become of the ownership of the two assessees and as such it would be that date which would be relevant for valuing those shares for the purposes of computing capital gains. In our view, right from December 19, 1959, up to the date the shares were either physically handed over to the assessees or the shares were transferred to their names in the books of Madura Mills the liquidator must be regarded as holding those shares for the two assessees. That being the position in law, in our view, the Tribunal was right in taking the view that the assessees, in accordance with the scheme of arrangement, became entitled to the Madura shares on December 19, 1959. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessees. The revenue will pay the costs of their application.
....
|
