Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1976 1976 (7) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 125 of 125 Records
-
1976 (7) TMI 5
Commercial Profit ... ... ... ... ..... to be gone into is whether there was enough money in the till of the company justifying distribution of any or higher dividends. The interpretation of section 23A which Mr. Sen invites us to accept, it appears, cannot be reconciled with the subsequent and successive interpretations of the said section by the Supreme Court. We have in mind the case of Gangadhar Banerjee 1965 57 ITR 176 (SC) and also the case of Gobald Motor Service (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1966 60 ITR 417 (SC). Therefore, we are unable to accept such interpretation. On the facts found, it is not possible to ascertain whether the dividends declared were reasonable or unreasonable. This question will be determined by the Tribunal. The matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for determination on further evidence, if necessary. The law to be applied has been indicated earlier. The Tribunal will afford opportunity to the parties to be heard afresh. There will be no order as to costs. DEB J.--I agree.
-
1976 (7) TMI 4
Inaccurate Particulars, Jurisdiction Of Tribunal, Levy Of Penalty, Question Of Fact ... ... ... ... ..... efault in making a payment of tax, he shall, in addition to the amount of the arrears and the amount of interest payable under sub-section (2) of section 220, be liable to pay by way of penalty, an amount which, in the case of a continuing default, may be increased from time to time, so, however, that the total amount of penalty does not exceed the amount of tax in arrears Provided that before levying any such penalty, the assessee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, the liability to pay the penalty is attracted by the mere commission of default and hence there was no question of the assessee offering any explanation as to why the default had occurred and the officer accepting such explanation. Under these circumstances, our answer to the second question is also in the affirmative and against the assessee. The department will be entitled to its costs of this reference from the assessee. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 500 (Rs. Five hundred only).
-
1976 (7) TMI 3
Business Expenditure, Capital Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... o attract the necessary customers for running the hotel which the assessee has been carrying on as its business. The items that have been described in the details of expenditure given are also such that they cannot be said to be of enduring nature, because those items like putting of plaster-moulded roof decoration and fixing of plywood panels would absolutely be of no use with reference to any other place. They are just fixed in the walls so that they would present an inviting appearance for the customers assembled there. They cannot be removed and used. Having regard to the nature of the business carried on by the assessee and the nature of the expenditure described above, we are satisfied that the Tribunal came to the correct conclusion in holding those items as revenue expenditure allowable as deduction under section 37 of the Act. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will have its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1976 (7) TMI 2
Business Expenditure, Expenditure Incurred, Income Tax Act, Legal Expenses, Management Expenses, Refusal To Register
-
1976 (7) TMI 1
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... e Board that, because of such payment of income to the deceased till her death, the charge to duty under s. 7 could be attracted. In law, on and after March 31, 1957, the deceased had no interest left whatsoever and she was not entitled to any income thereafter and under the provisions of the Bombay Act, the income as well as the corpus was payable to the beneficiaries who did not include the deceased. If at all she has received income of the 1/3rd share in the trust funds till her death, the same must be regarded as a bounty to which she was not entitled. Section 7, therefore, would be clearly inapplicable. In view of the above discussion, the charge of estate duty is clearly attracted to the facts of the case under s. 11 of the Act and the question that has been referred to us has to be answered in the affirmative, against the official trustee and in favour of the revenue and we answer it accordingly. The official trustee will pay the costs of the reference to the revenue.
....
|
|