Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 88 of 88 Records
-
1977 (9) TMI 8
Applied To, Average Rate Of Tax, Foreign Income, Relief In Respect ... ... ... ... ..... of which grind but slowly, much to our regret, we cannot help this consequence, unless the Bar will be far more vigilant and exert very much more and we on our side are enabled by the court having its full sanctioned strength and unless all of us too turn out very very hard work in the disposal of the large number, we would say the alarming number of cases that are pending in this court, and in every court in India. We dispose of this writ petition on the terms we have mentioned earlier in this judgment. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs. Expeditious steps will be taken by the revenue and we expect that the assessee having been given a second life will not ruin himself by his own carelessness and will also act promptly by responding to the communication and by producing the materials, if any, necessary to establish the factors essential for the purpose of the application of s. 220(7) and for avoiding the applicability of the Explanation of the sub-section.
-
1977 (9) TMI 7
Adequate Consideration ... ... ... ... ..... n law in respect of a property in Canada is not a consideration in favour of the husband at all because the transfer is not a consideration in favour of the husband at all. That may be a motive for entering into a pre-nuptial agreement but since it is not consideration in favour of the husband for transfer, it is not possible for us to take the view that, such being the position in Canadian law, the transfer by the husband of the properties in favour of the wife pursuant to the provisions of the pre-nuptial agreement was for adequate consideration as that expression is understood in law. Accordingly, the question referred to us is answered as under The Tribunal was not right in holding that the transfer of the immovable properties by the assessee to his wife was for adequate consideration and the income from the properties so transferred was not includible in the total income of the assessee under section 64(1)(iii) of the Act. The assessee shall pay the costs of the revenue.
-
1977 (9) TMI 6
Income Tax Act, New Industrial Undertaking, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... the principle of that decision that the relief under s. 99(1)(iv) would be available on the gross dividend income and not on the net dividend income would apply to the case before them as well, in view of the language in s. 99(1)(iv) and s. 80K being similar, and hence there was no question of any excessive relief having been granted and, accordingly, the proposal for reassessment was not valid. In CIT v. Central Bank of India Ltd. 1976 103 ITR 196, the Bombay High Court, dealing with the question of relief in respect of dividends attributable to agricultural income, held that the relief contemplated under s. 56A and under s. 49B is available in relation to the whole of the dividends without reducing the same by interest and administrative expenses. The ratio of this decision would equally apply to the dividends under section 80K. For the foregoing reasons, the question referred to us in answered in the affirmative and against the revenue with costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1977 (9) TMI 5
Capital Expenditure, Cinema Theatre, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... expenditure was incurred after the acquisition of the lease and receiving possession of the property and that it was not incurred with a view to acquire a right of the lessee. Actually, possession had to be given in view of the terms of the agreement to lease because a godown had to be converted into a cinema theatre. But for this agreement Richpal would not have even executed the deed of lease which he did later on in the year 1963. Thus, the conclusion that has been arrived at by the Tribunal is unjustified having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the Tribunal was in error in taking the view that the amount which came to be borne by the assessee was in the nature of a revenue expenditure. Accordingly, our answer to the question referred is in the negative and the assessee is not entitled to a deduction of the sum of Rs. 49,009 under s. 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, as his expenditure is of a capital nature. The assessee shall pay the costs of the revenue.
-
1977 (9) TMI 4
A Partner, Deemed Income, Income Of HUF, Partner In Firm, Total Income, Undistributed Profits
-
1977 (9) TMI 3
Mixed Question, Question Of Fact, Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... n, were bad in law ? 4. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the jodhpur property and share income was the income of Deepchand Kothari, HUF ? 5. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally right in holding that the income from the property and share income of the Beawar firm were the income of the HUF? 6. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the property and share income of jodhpur and Beawar were thrown into the common stock of the HUF with the intention of treating it as the income of the HUF ? 7. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the question of the ownership of the Beawar property and share in the firm and their income for the assessment years up to and including the assessment years 1969-70 have been finally settled and could not be reopened in any of the proceedings under the Act ?
-
1977 (9) TMI 2
Assessment Year, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... of that case, the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the amount received by the assessee is in the nature of a revenue receipt. It has been agreed by the courts now that the question as to whether a particular amount received by an assessee should be treated as a capital receipt or a revenue receipt, though not one of fact and thus involves conclusions of law on facts, it is dependent to a very great extent on the particular facts of each case. From the discussion made above, it is clear that it is not possible to contend that the amounts received by the assessee were either in lieu of salary or by way of profits in business. On the facts and circumstances of this case, we think the receipts of the sum of Rs. 30,000 and Rs. 20,000 by the assessee are not revenue receipts and, therefore, not taxable. The question referred to us is answered, accordingly, in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to his costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1977 (9) TMI 1
The assessee agreed to buy share from a bank, but did not take delivery of the shares even after paying the price. The dividends were held by the bank for the assessee's benefit, whether the interest charged on purchase price and the damages for the failure to take delivery of shares are allowable expenditure- appeal of assessee is allowed in part
|