|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 92 of 92 Records
-
1977 (2) TMI 12 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... negative and in favour of the assessee. Regarding the second question, we find that if the additions are fully deleted then there cannot be a clear case of concealment for the purpose of section 271(1)(c) of the Act, as in the instant case. The second question has been framed on the basis that the additions on account of cash credits have been fully deleted and whether the Tribunal was right under those circumstances in holding that there was a clear case of concealment and that must be understood to be concealment for the purpose of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. To be a concealment under section 271(1)(c), the concealed income must remain in the assessment order in its final form, otherwise the penal provision regarding concealment may not be attracted. In the result, we also answer the second question of law in the negative and against the department. The reference is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. N. IBOTOMBI SINGH J.--I agree.
-
1977 (2) TMI 11 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Cause Of Action, Financial Year ... ... ... ... ..... n the plaintiff. There will be only an injunction restraining the defendants from confirming the sale on the basis that there was no valid sale. The learned counsel for the respondents states that the purchasers had deposited the auction amount before the Collector, and it is lying in deposit. He also states that pending the second appeal, the plaintiff had sold the very same properties to the auction purchasers or their nominees and that as per their agreement the plaintiff is entitled to receive the money from the Collector. That is a matter which I could not take up for consideration in this proceeding. On the basis that the sale is invalid, defendants Nos. 4 to 7 would be entitled to get back the money from the Collector and the plaintiff will have to work out her remedies as against defendants Nos. 4 to 7 separately and not in these proceedings. With these observations and subject to the modification of the decree as stated above the second appeal is dismissed. No costs.
-
1977 (2) TMI 10 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ove order though the petitioner s case also related to the same year, i.e., 1971-72. The learned senior standing counsel submitted that the case dealt with in annexure I was distinguishable from the present case inasmuch as the delay in filing such declaration in that case was only by two months whereas in the present case the delay was by about 7 1/2 months. But there is nothing in the order of the Commissioner to show that he distinguished the present case from the aforesaid case on the ground of greater delay in filing such declaration. The impugned order of the Commissioner of Income-tax suffers from manifest error of law and hence is liable to be quashed. In the result we allow this petition and quash the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax dated March 13, 1975 (produced as annexure G ). It will be open to him to dispose of the petitioner s revision petition afresh and according to law. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1977 (2) TMI 9 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Net Wealth, Original Assessment, Wealth Escaping Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... that the assessee has been able to discharge the burden cast upon it under the Explanation to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Thus, the Explanation is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. So it will be the burden of the department to prove that there was concealment of the particulars of income or that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars of such income deliberately. To this effect there is no material from the side of the department and the Tribunal also has found that the department has not been able to establish this aspect of the matter. In the result, we find that the Tribunal, on the facts and circumstances of the case, was right in cancelling the penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 1968-69. The question of law referred is answered in the affirmative and against the department. The reference is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. N. IBOTOMBI SINGH J.--I agree.
-
1977 (2) TMI 8 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Royalties From Foreign Enterprises, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... in which 60 should be worked out with reference to such income. As a matter of fact, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal took note of this section and pointed out that a harmonious construction of section 80B and section 80-O will have to be arrived at and that harmonious construction cannot ignore the presence of the words in section 80-O, namely, any income by way of royalty, commission, fees or any similar payment received by it (underlining is ours) and that if that expression is taken into account, any income by way of royalty, commission, fees or any similar payment received by it cannot mean any income of that category arrived at, after deducting the expenses referable thereto. We, therefore, hold that the conclusion of the Tribunal is correct. Under these circumstances, we answer the question referred to this court in the affirmative and against the revenue. The assessee will be entitled to its costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (Rupees five hundred only).
-
1977 (2) TMI 7 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... forfeiture or punishment may be imposed as if the repealing Act or Regulation had not been passed. The instant case is not one of repeal and nothing is said in the section which would save the proceeding before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. We do not find any support for the contention of the learned standing counsel. Both the contentions fail and we adopt the ratio of this court s decision in Dhadi Sahu s case 1976 105 ITR 56 (Orissa) for our conclusion that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to impose penalty on 16th of March, 1973. He had lost jurisdiction with effect from April 1, 1971. The application is accordingly allowed and the imposition of penalty by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner as upheld in revision is quashed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs inasmuch as the petitioner had not taken the present stand either before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner or specifically before the Commissioner. PANDA J.-I agree.
-
1977 (2) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Law Applicable, Wealth Tax Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... der of the officer levying the penalty. However, the conclusion of the Tribunal in this behalf has become erroneous in view of the subsequent amendment of the relevant statutory provisions with retrospective effect. Section 23 of the Direct Taxes (Amendment) Act, 1974 (Central Act 26 of 1974), has provided as follows Clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 18 of the Wealth-tax Act, as it stood during the period commencing on the 1st day of April, 1965, and ending with the 31st day of March, 1969, shall have and be deemed always to have effect as if the words the tax occurring therein, at both the places, mean the wealth-tax chargeable under the provisions of that Act. The said provision was made virtually to get over the decision referred to already by the Tribunal. In view of t his section, the third question in T.C. No. 259/74 has to be answered in the negative and against the assessee and we accordingly do so. There will be no order as to costs in any of these tax cases.
-
1977 (2) TMI 5 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Capital Of Company, Computation Of Capital, Super Profits Tax ... ... ... ... ..... it and on behalf of its constituent, the assessee, and charged the latter interest till the date of such payments. The principles of law merchant that guide us in the matter, applied to the facts of the case, render the conclusion irresistible that the amounts given credit to to the assessee upon indorsement of the bills were not the consideration for the discounting of the bills as there was no discount but that the indorsement of the bills in favour of the bank was only a financial arrangement between the bank and its constituent to avoid freezing on credit to the latter and was done in the course of its usual banking transactions. The contention of Sri S. R. Rajasekharamurthy to the contrary cannot be accepted. We, accordingly, answer the question referred in I.T.R.C. Nos. 7, 8, 9 and the second question referred in I.T.R.C. Nos. 15, 16 and 17 of 1974, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The assessee is entitled to its costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250 one set.
-
1977 (2) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Companies Profits Surtax, Computation Of Capital, Contingency Reserve ... ... ... ... ..... order of the AAC it would be clear that it was not created for the purpose of meeting any tax liability as such. It would, therefore, follow that it would be in the category of a free reserve so as to qualify for inclusion in the computation of capital. The Tribunal s conclusion in this regard is correct. As regards the pension reserve it has been pointed out by the AAC that there has been no debit to this reserve account from the very inception and that it was ultimately transferred to the general reserve account and it was also used for declaration of dividends. Under these circumstances, it is clear that it was not for the purpose of meeting any liability as such. In the context of the above facts, it is clear that the decision of the Tribunal regarding this reserve also is correct. We, therefore, answer the question referred to this court in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1977 (2) TMI 3 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Penalty Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... . v. State of Maharashtra 1975 35 STC 571 AIR 1975 SC 1549 by stating that the Income-tax Act, 1961, imposes penalty under ss. 270 and 271. These sections in the I.T. Act provide for imposition of penalty on contumacious or fraudulent assessees. It, therefore, appears to us that while applying these dicta to the case the Tribunal cannot be said to have made a wrong approach or misdirected itself on a question of law. It has dismissed the appeal against the order of the AAC and while doing so has supplied an extra ground of support that it was also necessary for the department to show which it failed to do, that the assessee either deliberately acted in defiance of law or its conduct was contumacious or dishonest . Since the matter stands concluded by the decisions of the Supreme Court, we do not consider that any question of law has arisen and the Tribunal should be directed to state a case. The application for reference is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
1977 (2) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... judgment, the evidence, on which the Department relies, is insufficient to come to the positive conclusion that the two trusts aforesaid are under the control of an individual who runs or manages the affairs of the company. In fact, before the tax authorities no evidence on this matter, it appears to us, has been led at all. We have said that to enjoy the protection of s. 2(18)(b)(i), it is necessary to prove not only that the shares have been unconditionally allotted to or acquired by the public, but also they are held beneficially by the public. In the absence of requisite evidence it is not possible for us to come to any conclusion one way or the other. In these circumstances, we are unable to answer the question referred to us and remit the matter to the Tribunal to give an opportunity to the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective cases. The Tribunal after taking such evidence as may be adduced, would give its decision according to law. DEB J.-I agree.
-
1977 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Whether loss in hedging transactions of banned items can be set off against profits of same year and whether such loss can be carried forward for set off in subsequent years - loss in hedging transaction of banned items could not be set off against profits of the same previous year under s. 24(1) - such a loss also could not be carried forward for set off against profits in the later years - Questions are answered in the negative and in favour of the department
|
