|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 173 Records
-
1978 (3) TMI 33 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Notice For Reassessment, Original Assessment, Work In Progress ... ... ... ... ..... cts subsequently different view was taken to the effect that the method of valuation adopted by the assessee was not the correct method. This merely amounts to a change of opinion. In the above view of the matter it cannot be said that there was any non-disclosure of material facts by the assessee in the instant case. It is well settled that when all the primary facts relevant for the purpose of assessment are disclosed by the assessee then a subsequent change of opinion on these facts would not confer jurisdiction upon the ITO to reopen the assessment. We respectfully agree with the decision of the learned judge of the court of first instance and fully confirm his reasonings and conclusions as recorded in the judgment appealed against. In our view the learned judge of the court of first instance came to a correct conclusion and, therefore, his judgment and order should be upheld. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs. GHOSE J - I agree.
-
1978 (3) TMI 32 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Accumulated Profits, Capital Gains, Deemed Dividend ... ... ... ... ..... alt with in the case. The decision is reported in A. Abdul Rahim Travancore Confectionery Works v. CIT 1977 110 ITR 595 (Ker) FB . We are referring to this aspect only to clarify that the decision is no authority for the position that there could be an extinguishment for the purpose of s. 2(22) without such extinguishment being the result of the operation of law. In view of our conclusion that there has been no extinguishment, we do not wish to deal with the question whether the extinguishment must be by operation of law. We leave the question open for consideration in future when it pointedly arises. In the light of the above, we have to answer the second question also in favour of the assessee and against the department. We do so and we direct the revenue to pay the costs of the assessee including counsel s fee of Rs. 500. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of this court will be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras Bench.
-
1978 (3) TMI 31 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof ... ... ... ... ..... l should apply its mind to the facts to see whether it was a case of concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars and, if so, whether the assessee has been able to establish that the same was not as a result of gross or wilful neglect on his part. The burden for proving the latter is on the assessee. The Tribunal has not applied its mind to the facts at all. It felt itself bound by the decision of this court in Harnam Singh s case 19771 106 ITR 532 (All). In the absence of relevant findings on various factual aspects, we are unable to adequately answer the questions referred to us. In our view, it would be appropriate for the Tribunal to rehear the appeal and give a finding in accordance with law. In this view, we return the reference unanswered with a direction that the Tribunal will rehear the appeal and decide it in accordance with law in the light of the observations. made above. As no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1978 (3) TMI 30 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Raw Material, Tax Concession ... ... ... ... ..... nguished from manufacture is nothing except bringing into existence a product after processing the raw materials in a manner which may not change the inherent quality or chemical composition of the raw material. The legislature has deliberately used not merely the word manufacture but also construction or production along with manufacture . The relevant phrase is not manufacture and production but manufacture or production or construction . The processing to which the billets are put in order to make iron rods and bars is, in my opinion, production. I am hence in complete agreement with the order proposed by my learned brother. BY THE COURT.--The writ petition is allowed with costs. The impugned orders of the ITO and the CIT are quashed to the extent noted in our judgment, and it is directed that the assessee would also be allowed the relief under s. 80-I of the Act in respect of the turnover of iron bars and rods manufactured or produced from billets purchased from outside.
-
1978 (3) TMI 29 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Loss, Revenue Loss, The High Court, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... ved as follows An order under section 35 of the Income-tax Act is not appealable. It is true that a petition to revise the order could be moved before the Commissioner of Income-tax. But Hirday Narain moved a petition in the High Court of Allahabad and the High Court entertained that petition. If the High Court had not entertained his petition, Hirday Narain could have moved the Commissioner in revision, because at the date on which the petition was moved the period prescribed by section 33A of the Act had not expired. We are unable to hold that because a revision application could have been moved for an order correcting the order of the Income-tax Officer under section 35, but was not moved, the High Court would be justified in dismissing as not maintainable the petition, which was entertained and was heard on merits. In the circumstances aforesaid, the appeal ought to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. M. M. DUTT J. --I agree.
-
1978 (3) TMI 28 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Property Passing On Death ... ... ... ... ..... the rent from the lessee, who continued to be in possession of the lands even after June 30, 1956, and utilised the same for his own purposes of payment of taxes, etc. In these circumstances, we hold that bona fide possession and enjoyment of the property gifted to the daughter was not immediately assumed by the donee and thenceforward retained by her to the exclusion of the donor and that the value of the lands gifted to the daughter is includible in the principal value of the estate of the deceased under s. 10 of the Act. We, accordingly, answer questions 1 and 3 in the negative and in favour of the revenue and against the accountable persons and question 2 in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue and against the accountable persons. The accountable persons shall pay the costs of the revenue. Advocate s fee Rs. 500. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of this court shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras.
-
1978 (3) TMI 27 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Cash System, Collaboration Agreement, Indian Company, Liability To Tax ... ... ... ... ..... o a particular income regularly on the cash basis. Even if the assessee is keeping his accounts on the cash basis in regard to his income, the assessee is liable to tax under s. 5(2)(b). To hold otherwise would be to take the income outside the purview of taxation under the Act, though such income had accrued in India to a non-resident and under s. 5(2)(b) the charge to tax had taken effect and there is no possibility of s. 5(2)(b) ever coming into operation. We cannot give to s. 145(1) such an overriding effect as to defeat the charge and the provisions of s. 5(2)(b). We are of the opinion that the Tribunal erred in holding that the royalty amount should be assessed on cash basis for the three assessment years if it is found that the books and balance-sheets of the assessee are maintained on cash basis. We, accordingly, answer the question in the negative and in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the revenue s costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 500.
-
1978 (3) TMI 26 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains Tax, Route Permits ... ... ... ... ..... al ought to have given a finding as to what was the cost of acquisition on the basis of the evidence available. Only if it comes to the conclusion that there was some cost incurred for the acquisition, the question of capital gains could arise at all. In the absence of such a finding we are unable to answer this reference. But we direct the Tribunal to go into the question as to whether there was any cost for the acquisition at all, and if so, what was the amount that was spent for the acquisition of this asset. If there was no cost of acquisition, the principle of Rathnam Nadar s case 1969 71 ITR 433 (Mad) would have to be applied. With these observations the question referred to us is returned unanswered and the Tribunal is directed to go into this question afresh in proceedings under s. 260 of the I.T. Act. There will be no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of this court will be sent to the Tribunal, Madras Bench.
-
1978 (3) TMI 25 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Carrying On Business, Dissolved Firm, Partnership Firm, Valid Notice ... ... ... ... ..... the two concerns. In our view, the fact of the mentioning of the file number of the HUF in the acknowledgment slip of the registered post by which the notice was sent cannot also be relied upon for deciding the case because that, as correctly pointed out by the learned judge of the court of the first instance, was not the admitted position on affidavits in this case. In a writ application, no finding should be arrived at on any disputed question of fact. As stated earlier, there was nothing to show whether the impugned notice was for the partnership or the HUF. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the impugned notice is vague. We are entirely in agreement with the decision of the learned judge of the court of first instance as also with his reasonings for his findings recorded in the judgment appealed against. This appeal, in our view, should fail. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed but there shall be no order as to costs. GHOSE J.--I agree.
-
1978 (3) TMI 24 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Interest Payable ... ... ... ... ..... in our opinion, opposed to public policy, and we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly found that the assessee was obliged to sell the bonds before they became ripe for payment only to stop incurring further loss as the money with which the subscription for the Government bonds had been made had been borrowed by the assessee from a bank at 10 interest while the bond carried interest only at 4 1/2 . The Tribunal has further found that the loss was incurred while trying to discharge the obligations in accordance with the accepted commercial practice in the line of business. In those circumstances, we find that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the loss in the purchase and sale of the Government bonds was allowable as a loss incidental to the carrying on of the assessee s business. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The assessee shall be entitled to its costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 150.
-
1978 (3) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Receipt, Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... ad clearly held that if interest was payable under a statute or under an agreement, express or implied, on any amount which has been withheld or liable to be refunded, it would be income and not a capital receipt irrespective of the act whether the interest paid is on a capital amount or profit. The interest paid under s. 214 of the Act being a statutory obligation with respect to an amount found refundable, we have to hold that though it may not be an income arising from an activity, business or investment, it would come under the head Other sources . The interest is not paid as personal compensation, but it is paid for deprivation of the use of the money. We have, accordingly, to hold that the Tribunal was right in holding that the respective interests received during the three assessment years were income liable to be assessed. We answer the three questions referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1978 (3) TMI 22 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
In Part, Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... question, i.e., the method or manner of valuation of the individual share of a partner, was not gone into. In the instant case the estate duty authorities accepted the value of the share of the partner as shown in the balance-sheet of the firm to start with but added thereto the estimated value of one individual asset, namely, the jute press. This computation in our view is erroneous. The authorities could have rejected the balance-sheet value and computed the value of the entire share of the deceased on the basis of what it would fetch in the open market. But they were not entitled to add thereto the estimated enhanced value of any particular asset. For the reasons as aforesaid, we answer question No. 1 in the negative and in favour of the assessee. By reason of our answer to question No. 1, question No. 2 does not call for any answer and we decline to answer the same. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. C. K. BANERJI J.--I agree.
-
1978 (3) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Attributable To, Concessional Rate, Income Tax, Manufacture Or Processing Of Goods, Plant Or Machinery, Total Income
-
1978 (3) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Being Heard, Notice Of Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... in respect of the matters required to be examined. Thus, mere taking evidence of a witness, who is a director of the petitioners, is not sufficient compliance with the requirements of the pro- visions of Expln. 3 of s. 153 of the Act, as the petitioners were not given an opportunity of being heard before the order was passed as regards the assessment of the firm of M/s. Ramdas Dossa and Company for the assessment year 1949-50.That being the position, the provisions of Expln. 3 to sub-s. (3) of s. 153 of the Act are not applicable to the petitioners and the impugned notice has been rightly quashed by the learned trial judge on the ground of bar of limitation. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. The appellant will pay the costs, which are quantified, at Rs. 250. Liberty to the respondent to withdraw Rs. 250 (two hundred and fifty) out of the amount deposited as security for costs and the balance of the amount so deposited be returned to the appellant.
-
1978 (3) TMI 19 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax Act, Assessing Officer, Original Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... lso expounded the same principle. Counsel for the revenue also invited our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Asst. Commr. of Sales Tax 1963 14 STC 976 at 981, for the proposition that there could be no escapement of income so long as proceedings for assessment are pending. The same principle was stated and applied in Dy. Commr. of Agrl. LT. and S.T. v. Philipose 1967 KLT 693 1967 KLJ 668 (para. 3). That proceedings by way of a fresh assessment in pursuance of an order of remand are only continuation of the original proceedings has been ruled in Addl. Asst. Commr. of S.T. v. Firm Jagmohandas Vijay Kumar 1970 25 STC 74 at 77 (SC). In the light of the above principles, we answer the question referred in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. No order as to costs. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar will be communicated to the Tribunal as required by law.
-
1978 (3) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Income, Income From Property, Setting Up ... ... ... ... ..... to be the assessee s income from business so as to enable the assessee to claim benefit under s. 25 of the Act. It is also significant that in S. G. Mercantile Corporation P. Ltd. 1972 83 ITR 700, the Supreme Court did not elaborate on the observations in Karanpura Development Co. Ltd. 1962 44 ITR 362 (SC) and such observations do not stand in our way in holding that the income of the assessee in the instant case from the sub-leases should be assessed and computed under s. 22 of the I.T. Act, 1961. For the reasons given above, we are unable to accept the contentions of Mr. Gupta. We answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. We, however, make it clear that our answer will not prejudice any other claim of the assessee or will not stand in the way of any other benefit, if any, available to the assessee under the Act, on the basis that such income is the assessee s business income. There will be no order as to costs. C. K. BANERJI J.--I agree.
-
1978 (3) TMI 17 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Assessment Year ... ... ... ... ..... hen, unless a different intention appears, the repeal shall not--... (c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under any enactment so repealed. The result of the combined operation of these provisions is that the repeal of an enactment includes the repeal of any provision contained therein and once such repeal takes place, the consequence provided by s. 6(c) of the Act is bound to follow and the rights and liabilities acquired or accrued are kept alive to be enforced in appropriate proceedings, even subsequent to the repeal. We are, accordingly, of the opinion, that the view taken by the Tribunal was correct. We answer the question referred in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. There will be no order as to costs. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar, and the seal of this court, will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1978 (3) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Failure To Disclose, Held By Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... anaged and controlled by the assessee himself. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that the non-receipt was manoeuvred and arranged by the assessee. In that background and in the facts of this case, it cannot be said that such a finding was wholly unjustified. Indeed, such a finding has not been challenged. If in that background, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the assessee was guilty of offence of concealment of particulars of income, in our opinion, that finding of the Tribunal cannot be said to be bad in law. After all, whether in a particular case there has been concealment of particulars of income would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case as observed in the case of CIT v. Ashoka Marketing Ltd. 1976 103 ITR 543 (SC). In that view of the matter, the second question must also be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties will pay and bear their own costs. GUHA J.--I agree.
-
1978 (3) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Fact By Tribunal, Finding Of Fact, In Part, Income From Undisclosed Sources, Wealth Tax Return
-
1978 (3) TMI 14 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... . (2) of s. 26A about the investigation into the genuineness of the existence of the firm. It is true as counsel for the assessee contended that there would be certain inconsistency. Such inconsistency, however, sometimes occurs when income is sought to be avoided in the hands of the real owner, as was noticed by the Supreme Court in a different context in the case of ITO v. Bachu Lal Kapoor 1966 60 ITR 74. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the fact that there was an order of assessment in respect of the firm does not preclude the examination of the question whether the firm is genuine or not. There were ample evidence, as indicated in the order of the ITO and the AAC, that the firm was not factually genuine. In that view of the matter, the question referred to us must be answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. In the facts and circumstances of this case, parties, however, will bear and pay their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
....
|
