|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 154 Records
-
1976 (11) TMI 34 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Retrospective Effect ... ... ... ... ..... s assessed tax and not tax payable . This amendment has been made retrospective and the amending Act further provides that it shall be deemed to have always been substituted. In view of this amendment, it is clear that the only answer that we can return to the question has to be in the negative. Shri Gupta argued that in the exercise of our advisory jurisdiction, we should not take notice of subsequent amendments but answer the question in the light of the law as it stood at the time of the order of the Tribunal. We cannot agree with this submission. We have to take notice of the amending Act which has expressly given retrospective operation to the amendment and has further provided that the substituted provision shall be deemed to have always been in force. This view also receive support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Commercial Tax Officer v. Sri Venkateswara Oil Mills 1973 32 STC 660. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative. No costs.
-
1976 (11) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Company In Which Public Are Substantially Interested ... ... ... ... ..... necessity arose, and that there were sufficient reserves by that time to meet the necessary capital expenditure. The Tribunal also held that for the detailed reasons given by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in paragraph 9 of his order, with which it agreed, the declaration of a larger dividend would not have been unreasonable. This is a finding which the Tribunal arrived at on the basis of the materials available and such a finding of fact, not having been challenged by asking for a reference of an appropriate question, will have to stand. Once that finding stands, the answer to the second question is in the negative and against the assessee. As we have pointed out already, the answer to the second question is confined only to the assessment year 1956-57, because we have held with reference to question No. 1 that the provisions of section 23A did not apply to the assessee-company in respect of the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1976 (11) TMI 32 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Assessment Year, Firm Consisting, Reassessment Proceedings, Total Income
-
1976 (11) TMI 31 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... peal arising out of the assessment proceedings. We do not think that it was necessary for the Tribunal to give any additional reasons where the reasons given in the original order of assessment themselves disclose a scheme aimed at defeating the revenue. Where the finding is that losses were falsely claimed by the assessee to set off the profits made by the assessee, the finding that the losses put forward were false is sufficient to hold that there was a scheme on the part of the assessee to defeat the revenue. That was sufficient to attract the penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c). The application is, therefore, rejected. No costs.
-
1976 (11) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income, Business Income, Earned Income ... ... ... ... ..... ef on the part of the assessee arises. Even with regard to the merits, as we pointed out already, the contention of the assessee was that he was having agricultural income from his native place and he was also having a business in Ceylon, and the amount seized from his premises constituted the accumulation of the said agricultural income and the business income. This contention of the assessee was not accepted. At the same time, there was absolutely no material to show that the amount in question constituted income received by the assessee from any investments made by him or from any property owned by him. Under these circumstances, the inference drawn by the Tribunal that the amount will constitute income earned by the assessee by personal exertion cannot be said to be erroneous in law. The result is that both the questions referred to this court are answered in the affirmative and against the revenue. The assessee is entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee is Rs. 500 one set.
-
1976 (11) TMI 29 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Wholly And Exclusively ... ... ... ... ..... plied the principles laid down in the case of V. Jaganmohan Rao 1970 75 ITR 373 (SC) in Income-tax Reference No. 192 of 1968, in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ramsevak Paul 1977 110 ITR 527 (Cal). If by reason of reopening, the previous under-assessment was set aside and the whole assessment proceedings started afresh, in the instant case, there is no reason why the admitted loss left undetermined should not be recomputed. For the reasons stated above, it appears to us that the losses claimed by the assessee cannot be ignored and they have to be computed for the purpose of determining the income which have escaped assessment. We, however, make it clear that if any portion of such loss is unabsorbed there will be no carry-forward thereof to any subsequent year. To the extent as stated above we answer the question referred 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. DEB J.--I agree.
-
1976 (11) TMI 28 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Act Of 1922, Act Of 1961, Carry Forward, Set Off, Substantive Provision, Taxing Statutes, Unabsorbed Depreciation
-
1976 (11) TMI 27 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Income, Original Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... t information he entertained the opinion that income had escaped assessment. We are unable to entertain this argument in view of the clear finding of the Tribunal that it was obvious that the Income-tax Officer had no knowledge of diversion of the borrowed money for investment in shares at the time when he made the original assessment. This finding of fact recorded by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has not been challenged by asking for reference of an appropriate question. Consequently, that finding of fact has to remain. If that finding of fact remains, the report of the audit party would undoubtedly constitute information coming into possession of the Income-tax Officer subsequent to the original assessment, in consequence of which he entertained the belief that the income had escaped tax. Under these circumstances, we answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative and against the assessee. The Commissioner is entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1976 (11) TMI 26 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Act Of 1922, Act Of 1961, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Assessment Order, Income Tax, Provisional Assessment, Regular Assessment
-
1976 (11) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Act Of 1922, Act Of 1961, Appellate Assistant Commissioner, Assessment Order, Income Tax, Provisional Assessment, Regular Assessment
-
1976 (11) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Receipt, Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... amount by the executors, which could only be on the basis that the said amount was included in the principal value of the estate passing on the death of the deceased under the Estate Duty Act. Having regard to these aspects which appear clear on record and having regard to the relevant clauses which are to be found in the agreement dated 29th October, 1948, it seems to us clear that the receipt of this amount in the hands of the assessees will have to be regarded as receipt of a capital nature and not an income of revenue nature. On the facts which are obtaining in this case, therefore, we are of the view that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the aforesaid amount received by the executors was not assessable in their hands as their income for the relevant assessment year. Having regard to the above discussion, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessees. Revenue will pay costs of the reference to the assessees.
-
1976 (11) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Of Company, Computation Of Capital ... ... ... ... ..... other head being current liabilities and provisions . There is a sub-head B. Provisions Immediately under this sub-head B. Provisions , we have two items, provision for taxation and proposed dividends . Thus, it will be clear that under the Companies Act, these two are treated as different from reserves and are treated only as provisions. The relevancy of our reference to the Companies Act, 1956, acquires further strength in view of the fact that Schedule VI to the Companies Act is actually referred to in the Explanation to rule 1 under the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. We have already referred to the first question in Tax Case No. 284 of 1972. But no argument is advanced on that question. Under these circumstances, all the questions referred to this court in the above references are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. The Commissioner is entitled to the costs of these references. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 250 in each.
-
1976 (11) TMI 22 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Best Judgment Assessment, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... of the Central income-tax assessment orders. In the result, the impugned assessment orders are set aside, the demand notices issued and the recovery proceedings started in pursuance thereof are quashed and the attachment is also released. Both the petitioner and the Agricultural Income-tax Officer are directed to comply with the directions given hereinabove promptly and timely we would also like to make it clear that if the Central income-tax assessment orders have already been finalised and if the assessee does not file the copies of the Central Income-tax assessment orders for the three assessment years in question within the time allowed hereinabove before the Agricultural Income-tax Officer, then the impugned assessment orders passed under section 20(4) of the Act and the demand notices issued and the recovery proceedings started in pursuance thereof will stand valid. The rule is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. N. IBOTOMBI SINGH J.--I agree.
-
1976 (11) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Withdrawal Of Development Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... ting of eight partners. In other words, by the reconstitution, what was implicit in the original partnership has been made explicit, since in the original partnership the three persons represented their respective Hindu undivided families, and, consequently, in substance it was the Hindu undivided families that were the partners and the members of the erstwhile coparcenaries alone that were subsequently assigned their respective interests, in the reconstituted firm, after a partition had taken place in the two families out of the three families constituting the original partnership. Having regard to all these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was right in its,conclusion that the action taken under section 155(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not warranted since there was no transfer of the assets in question. The result is that we answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative and against the revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1976 (11) TMI 20 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Collaboration Agreement, Foreign Company ... ... ... ... ..... e use of the technical know-how for manufacture of the clocks for the period of the agreement. In this context, the expression occurring in paragraph 3 of the heads of the agreement, viz., for the purpose of enabling Time-Aids (the assessee) to manufacture in India for the time being one-day alarm clocks under the brand names of Hustler and Big Ben , will be relevant. Having regard to all the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the arrangement entered into between the parties was only a licensing agreement and the payment made by the assessee, which is the subject-matter of this reference, was only the payment of licensing fee, and, therefore, that cannot be said to be an expenditure of capital nature, and, consequently, that was an item to be deducted in computing the profits and gains of the business of the assessee. The result is that we answer the question referred to this court in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1976 (11) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Partition In HUF ... ... ... ... ..... e provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property inherited by the son from his father, from whom he has separated, is his individual property and cannot be assessed as the income of the Hindu undivided family of himself and his son. The same view has been taken by the Assam High Court in the other decision referred to already. No decision of any court taking a contrary view has been brought to our notice. The learned counsel for the department was also not able to persuade us, on the basis of any principle of Hindu law, to take a view different from the one taken by the Allahabad High Court and the Assam High Court in the decisions referred to above. Under these circumstances, in view of the two decisions referred to above, it will follow that the conclusion of the Tribunal is correct. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to his costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1976 (11) TMI 18 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Of Company, Computation Of Capital, Super Profits Tax ... ... ... ... ..... 00 has been provided in the accounts. This amount has been computed by the bonus formula agreed to between the union representative and the management in an agreement which was effective until the end of March, 1962. Thus, it is clear that the said amount did not represent any amount to meet an unforeseen, contingent or unexpected liability but was set apart for the purpose of meeting the known present liability of payments of bonus to the employees according to the bonus formula in terms of the agreement in force between the employer and its employees. Consequently, the Tribunal rightly held that this amount would not constitute reserve within the Explanation of Paragraph 1 of Schedule II to the Act. The result is, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative so far as the two amounts of Rs. 15,50,000 and Rs. 5,69,000 are concerned and against the assessee and in the negative in respect of Rs. 1,36,060 and against the revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1976 (11) TMI 17 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Change Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... statute and if we rely on the amended provision on September 27, 1967 on which date the proceeding was not barred under the unamended Act, there cannot be any question of limitation and any question of the recovery proceeding being barred by any provision of law as found in the unamended section 36(5) of the Act. We, therefore, find that in the instant case since the demand was very much alive and it was not barred on the day when the amended section 36 came into operation, there cannot be any bar for the recovery proceeding. This view is well supported by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S. S. Gadgil v. Lai and Co. 1964 53 ITR 231 (SC) in which a similar point arose, though that was a case under the Income-tax Act. In the result, we find that the petition has no merit and it is accordingly dismissed. The rule is discharged. The stay order stands vacated. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. N. IBOTOMBI SINGH J.--I agree.
-
1976 (11) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Inaccurate Particulars, Income Tax Act, Jurisdiction Of High Court ... ... ... ... ..... alty, that the department had failed to prove that the assessee was guilty of the offence charged and that the assessee was required to be given the benefit of the doubt. On the facts, which need not be set out, another view is possible perhaps that view of the matter may be considered to be the better view inasmuch as two of the disallowed payments were purportedly made by bearer cheques and encashed by the assessee s employees. However, even if we were to be of that opinion, it is not possible, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to say that the Tribunal s conclusion was perverse or so unreasonable that it cannot be upheld. The view taken by the Tribunal is a possible view on the facts and if it is a possible view, then the answer to the question must be in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the result, the re-framed question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The parties, however, will bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1976 (11) TMI 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Liability To Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the payments were made in token of appreciation of the religious discourses rendered by the deceased and which he was pursuing as his avocation. The Tribunal has further observed that Sashtiabdapoorthi was made an occasion to remunerate the deceased for the professional services rendered in giving religious discourses. The finding of the Tribunal cannot be sustained. The Tribunal itself has pointed out that the assessee had been remunerated for the discourses as and when discourses were held. There is no material on record for saying that the sum of Rs. 13,000 was actually remuneration paid in connection with the past performances, though the occasion for making the said payment was the Sashtiabdapoorthi. In the absence of any such material, the Tribunal s assumption that the said sum, was remuneration has absolutely no basis whatever. The question has, therefore, to be answered in the negative and against the revenue. The assessee will have his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
....
|
