Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 135 of 135 Records
-
1976 (8) TMI 15
Assessment Notice, Firm Registration, High Court, Reassessment Notice, Res Judicata, Writ Petition
-
1976 (8) TMI 14
Gift Tax, Income Tax, Withdrawal Of Development Rebate, Written Down Value ... ... ... ... ..... e aforesaid decision. Subsequently, a Bench of this court in A. Vimalan v. CGT 1974 94 ITR 21 (Mad) applied this decision to a similar case arising under the G.T. Act itself. That was also a case where buses with route rights had been transferred and the value for the route rights had not been described in the transaction between the parties. The GTO estimated the value of the route rights at Rs. 31,688 and computed the gift-tax payable. It is this assessment which was ultimately upheld by this court in that case. Therefore, having regard to these decisions, it is clear that the route rights have a value and that so long as the transaction between the parties did not ascribe a value to the route rights, there would be an element of gift. There is no dispute about the valuation as such and, in the circumstances, the third question also has to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The Commissioner will be entitled to costs. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 500.
-
1976 (8) TMI 13
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... r 30, 1969, and that it is in view of this only the other co-sharers have joined in the execution of the sale deed as owners of the property. In such a situation, it is really irrelevant as to what exactly was the amount the assessee has paid to the other co-sharers--whether it is exactly equivalent to the original value of their shares or more or less. All that we are concerned with is, to whom did the capital gains belong in law. Since they happened to be co-owners of the property the capital gains resulting from the transfer of the property effected by all the three jointly will belong to all the three jointly according to their respective interests sold and consequently the entire capital gains cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee alone. Under these circumstances, we answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to his costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (Rs. five hundred only).
-
1976 (8) TMI 12
Business Expenditure, Income Tax Act, Insurance Company, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... Navigation Co. (1953) P. Ltd v. CIT 1965 56 ITR 52 (SC), State of Madras v. G. J. Coelho 1964 53 ITR 186 and India Cements Lid. v. CIT 1966 60 ITR 52, it is obvious that, in the instant case, since it is not a question of the assessee-company having borrowed money or entered into any arrangement prior to the commencement of the business, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the three cases just now referred to will apply. Hence, it must be held that the guarantee commission paid by the assessee in the year of account of the relevant assessment year, Rs. 10,242, must be treated as revenue expenditure and not as capital expenditure. Hence, this expenditure of Rs. 10,242 is an admissible deduction as an expenditure under s. 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner will pay costs of this reference to the assessee. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1976 (8) TMI 11
Penalty Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... ings of the Tribunal have not been questioned by the revenue on the ground of perversity. Therefore, it must be held that the ITO had no occasion to satisfy himself in the course of the assessment proceedings that the assessee had concealed Rs. 19,647. It is also not the finding of the Tribunal that Rs. 10,263 was included in Rs. 19,647. Hence, in view of the above decisions cited by Dr. Pal and the decision of the Special Bench of this court in the case of Mahabir Prosad Poddar v. ITO reported in 1972 Tax L.R. 711 (Cal) (SB), it must be held that the IAC had no jurisdiction to levy penalty on the assessee on a new charge of concealment of Rs. 19,647 as its income and accordingly it must also be held that the penalty order passed by him is null and void. In the premises, we are not impressed by the contentions of Mr. Sengupta and return our answer to the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1976 (8) TMI 10
Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure, Expenditure Incurred, Export Business ... ... ... ... ..... uraging exports and for encouraging industrial development. To that end all the State Governments are also exerting themselves to the utmost. On the other hand, the attitude taken up by the department of direct taxes discourages any such drive for encouraging exports and industrial development. It is high time that the two departments, one of direct taxes and the other of promotion of export and industries, should work in harmony and lay down policy decisions which would work in harmony with each other. We are constrained to make this observation because of the conflicting interests of the two departments of the Government of India. In these circumstances, we answer the question referred to us as follows The amount of Rs. 38,229 spent by the assessee on the guests can be allowed under s.37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The question. is, therefore, answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Addl. CIT will pay the costs of the assessee. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1976 (8) TMI 9
Cost Of Acquisition ... ... ... ... ..... ost of acquisition the interest which has been capitalised must be included otherwise, from the commercial point of view and the principles of accountancy, one cannot get a correct idea of the cost of acquisition. The Tribunal, in the instant case, has, therefore, applied the correct principle and come to the correct conclusion. Under these circumstances, it is obvious that the amount of Rs. 11,344 was part of the actual cost of acquisition for purposes of determining the capital gains for the assessment year 1967-68. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us, viz., whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the interest amount of Rs. 11,344, constituted part of the actual cost of the plots to the assessee for purposes of determining the capital gains for the assessment year 1967-68, in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1976 (8) TMI 8
Exemptions, Goodwill, Reassessment, Windfall ... ... ... ... ..... cally have raised a question thereon in the application for reference. (3) The question whether the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment by reason of the failure of the ITO to draw proper inferences from the materials in his possession is not a different aspect of the question whether the income escaped assessment by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment. (4) The assessee here cannot agitate the point which he conceded before the Tribunal, as if it was another aspect of the question raised, even if the question framed was wide enough to cover the point conceded. (5) Even the question of jurisdiction has to arise out of the Tribunal s order for being considered in the reference and it does not so arise here. For all these reasons mentioned above, the first question is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The department will have its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1976 (8) TMI 7
False Evidence, Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... e means to enable the said officers to move appropriate courts to render appropriate punishments commensurate with the gravity of the offences. The last submission made before me, which was not raised before the Chief judicial Magistrate, is on the wording of the complaint itself. It was contended that the first accused is a company. A company cannot have mens rea. If the entire complaint is read, it is seen that all the allegations are against the company. No individual acts against the other accused have been indicated, nor are they roped in by virtue of the group liability section. These are matters to be gone into by the trial court on evidence. It would not be proper to exercise inherent jurisdiction under s. 482 Cr. PC at this stage. The prayer, therefore, to quash the proceedings before the Chief judicial Magistrate on these submissions cannot be allowed. In my judgment, therefore, this petition has to fail and criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed.
-
1976 (8) TMI 6
Royalties received from the Government of India in accordance with the agreement for broadcasting from the stations of All India Radio accrued or arose to the assessee in India under s. 5(2) - royalties receivable by the assessee as per the agreement were its income, the assessee received the income and merely applied it in a specific way - Assessee's appeal dismissed
-
1976 (8) TMI 5
As the appeal succeeds on a preliminary ground, we do not feel it necessary to express any opinion on the question as to whether or not the Appellate Tribunal under the Excess Profits Tax Act has statutory or inherent power to review and rectify mistakes in its orders - revenue's appeal is allowed
-
1976 (8) TMI 4
Appellant argues that reassessment under section 147(b) would be justified where in the original assessment income liable to tax has escaped assessment due to oversight, inadvertence or a mistake committed by the Income-tax Officer - present case does not fall in any of above categories - revenue's appeal dismissed
-
1976 (8) TMI 3
Whether the assessee is entitled to the exclusion from the income under the head 'property' of an amount equal to the irrecoverable rent which has not been so excluded in the preceding assessments - Where, however, the provisions are couched in language which is not free from ambiguity and admits of two interpretations a view which is favourable to the subject should be adopted - revenue's appeal is dismissed
-
1976 (8) TMI 2
Whether mere possibility of user for agricultural purposes would make land agricultural one - Hold that the Tribunal should determine afresh, from a correct angle, the question of fact whether any of the lands under consideration were "agricultural" or not for the purposes of the Act before it. Accordingly, we allow these appeals, set aside the judgment and order of the Full Bench and send back the cases to the Tribunal for appropriate orders
-
1976 (8) TMI 1
At no stage before the income-tax authorities a contention was raised that the notice was served on a dead person - appellant is bound by the assessment made in respect of the income of his family which continued in the eye of law to be joint. The share of the appellant's properties received by him from the joint family or the income thereof is liable for the income-tax dues in question - appellant was ill-advised to file a misconceived petition on wholly untenable grounds - Appeal dismissed
....
|