|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 125 Records
-
1976 (7) TMI 25 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sales Tax Liability ... ... ... ... ..... unting year ending on January 31, 1952, as it was in that year that the liability had accrued. The liability in the earlier years was at best a contingent liability. It might be that, so far as sales tax liability is concerned, that is not a contingent liability but inasmuch as the Hindu undivided family had been following the mercantile system of accounting and making provision for the tax only on estimate basis, it was in the year in which it was quantified finally that the actual liability for sales tax was finally determined. The excess amount over that for which provision had been made thus undoubtedly accrued in the year in which it was finally quantified. This quantification took place in the financial year relevant to the assessment year 1962-63. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to its costs which is assessed at Rs. 200. Counsel s fee is assessed at the same figure.
-
1976 (7) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Income Tax, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... could well have been allotted to him, since the family admittedly had other properties. Similarly, in a given case, the person who impressed the individual interest with the joint family character might become a sole surviving coparcener so that he became entitled to the whole of the family properties. Therefore, it is difficult to say on the facts herein that there was a determination of his interest in the sense that he lost the whole of the interest in favour of another person or that there was a kind of partial surrender in the sense that his interest became limited to any particular fraction of the totality of the interest. We are, therefore, of the opinion that section 11 is not also satisfied on the facts herein. The Tribunal is right in holding that the assessment based on section 11 cannot also stand. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the accountable person, who will be entitled to her costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1976 (7) TMI 23 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Act Of 1961, Assessment Order, Law Applicable, Original Assessment, Penalty Proceedings, Total Income
-
1976 (7) TMI 22 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... was erroneously done. What really appears to have been done in the present case is that but for the original partnership deed dated March 18, 1960, there was no other partnership deed and for the assessment year 1962-63 the earlier deed of partnership executed on March 18, 1960, is of no avail because in the partnership which was working during the relevant accounting year, namely, calendar year 1961, there was a change in the constitution of the firm as well as in the shares of the respective partners of the firm. When such is the position, the provisions of sub-section (7) of section 184 of the Act are not attracted and the Tribunal was right in taking the view that the new partnership of three partners with revised shares was not entitled to registration especially when there was no deed of partnership evidencing the respective shares of the partners. In the result, our answer to the question referred is in the affirmative. The assessee shall pay the costs of the revenue.
-
1976 (7) TMI 21 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Hundi Loans, Income Tax Act, Question Of Law, Wealth Tax Return ... ... ... ... ..... vied equivalent to the value of the wealth declared for each year, certainly, it will be several times more than the value of the wealth itself, and that is one of the reasons why we are of the view that when the settlement was effected, it was the intention of the parties that no penalty under the Wealth-tax Act should be levied, and that a minimum penalty under the Income-tax Act should be levied. As we have already pointed out, even this minimum penalty under the Income-tax Act had not been levied. Under these circumstances, having regard to the fact that the entire thing took place as a result of the settlement arrived at between the department and the firm, the levy of penalty was not called for, and the Tribunal was right in setting aside the order of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Having regard to these facts, no question of law can be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs
-
1976 (7) TMI 20 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Debts And Incumbrances, Estate Duty, Principal Value Of Estate ... ... ... ... ..... duty himself, would not pay a price less estate duty payable on the estate. Under these circumstances, even the alternative meaning of the word encumbrance , for which Mr. Anjaneyulu for the accountable person has contended, cannot help the accountable person in this case. Our conclusion, therefore, is that estate duty is neither a debt nor an encumbrance and is not an encumbrance either within the meaning of section 74(1) of the Act, or within the broader meaning of the word encumbrance referred to above. In view of this conclusion, it must follow that estate duty payable on the estate was not deductible while computing the estate duty payable on the principal value of the estate passing on the death under the Estate Duty Act. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the accountable person. The accountable person will pay costs of this reference to the Controller of Estate Duty. Advocate s fees Rs. 250.
-
1976 (7) TMI 19 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Bona Fide, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... assessee in favour of his two sons, namely, the other two partners. Admittedly, such a question was not agitated before any of the authorities below and was not put forward before the Tribunal and the Tribunal had no occasion to consider such a case. As a matter of fact, even though the Gift-tax Officer, for the purpose of valuing the 15 share of the profits, took the value of the goodwill into account, he did not proceed on the basis of there having been a gift of 2/3rds of the goodwill itself by the assessee in favour of the other two partners and in view of this, this question was never considered by any of the authorities and hence it cannot be said that it arises out of the order of the Tribunal so as to justify this court in dealing with such a question. Under these circumstances, we answer the second question referred to above in the affirmative and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to his costs of this reference. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 500.
-
1976 (7) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Charitable Trust, Immovable Property, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... eceipt of only such income as remains after meeting the expenses for conducting and managing the two maternity hospitals. For conducting the maternity hospitals the presence of a doctor is essential and Dr. Mrs. Divekar was to manage both the maternity hospitals on behalf of the trust during her lifetime. It was in lieu of rendering such services to the two maternity homes that a sum of Rs. 7,500 was to be paid to her. This is a part of the normal expenditure of conducting and managing the maternity homes and it has to be deducted before the income of the trust in the hands of the trustees can be arrived at. Accordingly, the sum of Rs. 7,500 which was paid to Dr. Mrs. Divekar having regard to the provisions of the indenture of trust was allowable as an admissible deduction in the computation of the income of the assessees as an association of persons. Accordingly, question No. 3 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessees. Each party will bear its own costs.
-
1976 (7) TMI 17 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Exemption From Tax, Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... ness. In the absence of any such material on record, it will be difficult to come to the conclusion that the condition indicated in section 15C(2)(i) had been satisfied or fulfilled so as to disentitle or disqualify the assessee-company from getting the relief conferred under the main provision of section 15C. In our view, therefore, since it has not been established by material on record that the reconditioned machinery which had been imported by the assessee-company from the U.K. had been previously used in any business either in the U.K. or in India prior to its installation in the assessee s factory, it is not possible to accept the contention of Mr. Joshi that the assessee-company has distentitled itself to get the benefit of section 15C of the Act. Having regard to the above discussion, we are of the view that the question referred to us needs to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Department will pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1976 (7) TMI 16 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Agricultural Produce ... ... ... ... ..... or the petitioner is not supported either by the facts of the case or by any provision of the Assam Co-operative Societies Act. In order to get the exemption under section 81(i)(c) of the Act the assessee must establish that it is a co-operative society and that it is engaged in the marketing of the agricultural produce of its members. If the assessee cannot establish that it is engaged in the marketing of the agricultural produce of its members, the exemption is not allowable. In the instant case the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal after considering the materials on record is that the assessee deals with agricultural produce not belonging to its members. That being so, the assessee is not entitled to the exemption under section 81(i)(c) of the Act as claimed. In the circumstances, we answer the question of law referred in the negative and against the assessee. The reference is answered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. M. SADANANDASWAMY J.-I agree.
-
1976 (7) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Revenue Expenditure, Winding Up ... ... ... ... ..... 0 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? (2) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in not allowing the item of Rs. 75,000 as expenditure of revenue nature ? The question which principally arises pertains to the item of Rs. 75,000 which has been incurred as an expenditure of the assessee-company in prosecuting certain winding-up petitions which had been preferred by several creditors of the lessee-company, viz., M/s. Western India Theatres Ltd. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the assessee has not shown how it was necessary for it to take up winding-up proceedings or to finance proceedings taken out by third parties for winding up the lessee-company. In view of this finding which has been recorded question No. 2 will have to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. We answer accordingly. In view of our answer to question No. 2, question No. 1 need not be answered. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1976 (7) TMI 14 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Clubbing Of Income, Income Tax, Revision By Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... ee. Thus it will be seen that section 34(1) is couched in the widest possible language and therefore it has got a very wide amplitude and will take in every order passed by any authority subordinate to the Commissioner under the Act. Hence the order passed under section 65 will fall within the scope of section 34 and, consequently, unless the learned counsel for the petitioner can satisfy this court that there is express provision in section 65 excluding the applicability of section 34 to the proceedings under section 65, he cannot succeed. Having regard to the language of section 65(7) which we have extracted in full, there is no such exclusion and all that have been excluded are the provisions regarding submission of returns, accounts or other documents, the assessment to agricultural income-tax or any other matter incidental thereto and nothing else. Therefore, there is no substance in this contention either. Under these circumstances, the petition fails and is dismissed.
-
1976 (7) TMI 13 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Income By Firm, Net Wealth, Voluntary Disclosure Of Income ... ... ... ... ..... owed under section 2(m) of the Act and should be allowed as a deduction in arriving at the net wealth of the assesee. The Wealtlh-tax Officer disallowed the claim against which the assessee filed an appeal which was accepted and the Wealth-tax Officer was directed to allow the said sum as a deduction in arriving at the net wealth of the assessee. The department filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Tribunal. The question of law referred on the facts of the case is squarely covered by a decision in Commissioner of Wealth-tax v. B. K. Sharma 1977 110 ITR 902 (All). Counsel for the department has not been able to persuade us that the view taken by the Division Bench needs reconsideration. In the circumstances, following the ratio of the decision in B. K. Sharma s case 1977 110 ITR 902 (All), we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. As nobody appeared for the assessee there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1976 (7) TMI 12 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Income Tax, Tax Demand, Winding Up ... ... ... ... ..... osts, charges and expenses properly incurred in the winding up, including the remuneration of the liquidator, shall, subject to the rights of secured creditors, if any, be payable out of the assets of the company in priority to all other claims. Section 476 reads as follows Power to order costs.--The court may, in the event of the assets being insufficient to satisfy the liabilities, make an order for the payment out of the assets, of the costs, charges and expenses incurred in the winding up, in such order of priority inter se as the Court thinks just. Here the company is insolvent and so the power under the above sections can be invoked by the court and the court can direct the liquidator to pay the tax demand of the Income-tax Officer before distributing the dividend. Therefore, we direct the official liquidator to pay the balance amount due in a month from this date. The application is ordered as above. But, in the ircumstances of this case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1976 (7) TMI 11 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Capital Asset, Fair Market Value, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... ceived by way of gift or constituted the income of the assessee. The time for making an assessment in the circumstances of the present case, in view of section 34(3), would have stood extended only in case the matter fell within section 28(1)(c) of the Act. It has been seen that the Income-tax Officer dropped the penalty proceedings and the Tribunal has further held that there was no concealment by the assessee. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal was right in holding that the period for making the assessment bad run out. The finding that there was no concealment has been recorded by the Tribunal after considering the relevant materials and the counsel for the department has failed to point out to us any irrelevant material considered by the Tribunal which would vitiate its finding. We accordingly answer both the questions in the affirmative, against the department and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee is assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1976 (7) TMI 10 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Industrial Undertaking, Private Company, Public Limited Company, Reconstruction Of Business ... ... ... ... ..... me-tax Act, 1922, could not be made applicable at all. It was stated in express terms by the Supreme Court--See 1962 44 ITR 809, 815 The power to rectify assessment of a partner consequent upon the assessment of the firm of which he is a partner by including or correcting his share of profit or loss can, therefore, be exercised only in case of assessment of the firm made on or after April 1, 1952. The decision, therefore, does not support the contention of the petitioner. In the light of the above, I hold that the Income-tax Officer is justified in exercising his powers under section 154 of the Act in rectifying the mistake and his order was rightly upheld by the Commissioner of Income-tax and, consequently, the orders of rectification at annexures 2 and 4 passed by them are held to be valid, effective and binding on the parties. The writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. UDAY SINHA J.--I agree.
-
1976 (7) TMI 9 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Computation Of Capital, General Reserve, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... d because the depreciated value of the assets at the end of the year can only be determined after deducting the amount that maybe allowed by the Income-tax Officer as and by way of depreciation. What is required to be considered having regard to the language of clause (iii) of rule 1 of the Second Schedule to the Act as well as the circular referred to by Mr. Toprani is when for the purposes of surtax the capital has to be computed as required by the Second Schedule to the Act whether depreciation has been allowed under the Income-tax Act for the relevant year, and if it is so allowed, then if the provisions of clause (iii) of rule 1 are attracted, they are to be given effect to. In our opinion, the view that has been taken by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the present case is quite correct and, accordingly, our answer to question No. 2 is in the affirmative and our answer to question No. 3 is also in the affirmative. The assessee shall pay the costs of the revenue.
-
1976 (7) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Average Rate, Question Of Fact ... ... ... ... ..... sed by the assessee-company from its own farms was lower than the average rate at which the assessee-company purchased sugarcane from outsiders in the market. Question No. 2 is only a different facet of the very same question and apart from merely different wording thereof, it does not require any independent consideration. Question No. 2 is to be answered accordingly in the negative. Question No. 3 relates to the query whether in the case of the assessee the cane rate should be fixed at the average purchase rate of sugarcane by the petitioner (assessee) company. If, as pointed out above, the instances of purchase of sugarcane from outsiders are not comparable instances, then, naturally, the average price indicated by these transactions can never be a safe guide for determining the cane rate in regard to the sugarcane used by the assessee-company from its own farms. Accordingly, our answer to question No. 3 is in the negative. The assessee shall pay the costs of the revenue.
-
1976 (7) TMI 7 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Income From Contract, Managing Agent, Rejection Of Accounts ... ... ... ... ..... no regard for the welfare of the company that was managed by them and they committed the assessee-company to the onerous responsibility of performing contracts for the supply of very large quantities of cloth at controlled rates with the object of benefiting themselves in the transactions by putting up nominees and relations of theirs to purchase the same. When such is the position, it cannot be said that any additional income was received by the assessee-company or it accrued to it. Thus, the Tribunal was right that the provisions of the proviso to section 13 of the Act cannot be invoked in the present case and on the material on record the Income-tax Officer was not justified in adding the sum of Rs. 76,92,566 to the income disclosed. In that view of the matter question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative. Having regard to the answer to question No. 1, question No. 2 does not survive. As nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee-company there will be no order as to costs.
-
1976 (7) TMI 6 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Business Income, Income From Business, Income From Property, Let Out, Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... 28) of the Act and not under section 56 thereof on the footing that it was income from other sources. Registration was refused as would appear from paragraph 22 of the judgment of the Tribunal that there being no business, there could not be a valid partnership entitled to registration under the Act. There can be a partnership only if some business is carried on. The existence of a business is thus the sine qua non of partnership. See Viswanathan v. Namakchand, AIR 1955 Mad 536. The taxing authorities were of the view that the undertaking in this case was not a business. Therefore, they had turned down the claim for registration. As no other defect has been pointed out and in view of our conclusion that the undertaking in question was a business, the claim for registration is bound to succeed. Both the questions are, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee. The assessee shall be entitled to costs of the references which we assess at rupees two hundred. DAS J.-I agree.
....
|
