|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 187 Records
-
1978 (8) TMI 47 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Assessment Year, Carry Forward, Change Of Law, Industrial Undertaking, Tax Concession ... ... ... ... ..... provide for carrying forward unabsorbed tax concession and such carrying forward was provided for the first time by s. 80J. It follows that for recomputing the tax concession for the assessment year 1967-68, for the purpose of determining the deficiency to be set off under s. 80J in the assessment for the assessment year 1968-69, it was r. 19A and not r.19 that could be applied. This is what the ITO had done and rightly in our opinion. As a result of the foregoing discussion, our answer to the second question referred to us should be in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. To sum up, the first question referred in this case is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the revenue and the second question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. As one of the questions referred to us is in favour of the assessee and another against it, we direct the parties to bear their own costs in this case.
-
1978 (8) TMI 46 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Fair Market Value, Immovable Property, Movable Property ... ... ... ... ..... nd in law. The basic question in this appeal as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant was whether the Tribunal had failed to take into consideration all the materials which were before the competent authority. It seems that the same material has been considered but a different conclusion has been reached, merely because of the two factors we have just set out, whether the amount of an enhancement to be made because the plot is freehold and the amount of discount that has to be made because the plot is irregular and suffers from other disadvantages which would put off a prospective customer. As stated in the quotation set out earlier, each case has to be considered on its own facts and it seems to us that this has to be done by the Tribunal and the conclusions, whatever they may be, are conclusions on the facts. These findings of facts are not open to challenge in appeal before this court. In the circumstances, we dismiss this appeal with costs. Appeal dismissed.
-
1978 (8) TMI 45 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Reassessment Proceedings, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... assessment years 1940-41 to 1947-48. The wealth-tax was assessed for the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60, that is to say, nearly more than ten years after the event. There had been no acknowledgment by anyone to extend the period of limitation. Thus, the so-called debts became time-barred long before. It cannot hence be said that on the valuation dates these amounts represented the assets of the company. We have no hesitation in saying that the Tribunal took a correct view of the situation. The Tribunal has referred another question with regard to reopening of the assessment under s. 17(1)(a) of the Act. Mr. S. C. Khare stated that in the light of our opinion on the first question, he did not desire to press the second question. In the result, the first question is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department and the second question is returned unanswered. The assessee is entitled to its costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (8) TMI 44 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Income Returned ... ... ... ... ..... so. The satisfaction required has come only on processing the revised return. Therefore, it is with reference to that return that proceeding for penalty has to be initiated. The revised return, as stated, has been filed after the coming into force of the Explanation. The Explanation would, therefore, apply. Learned standing counsel for the department has cited the following decisions in support of his contention CIT v. K. C. Behera 1976 103 ITR 479 (Orissa) and CIT v. Puranmal Prabhudayal 1977 106 ITR 675 (Orissa). These decisions do support his point of view. In view of the above discussion, it must be held that the Tribunal erred in deleting the penalty imposed on the assessee by wrongly placing the burden of proof on the department. The question referred is accordingly answered in the negative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. Since the Tribunal has not dealt with the merits of the assessee s appeal, it may now do so. S. SARWAR ALI J.--I agree.
-
1978 (8) TMI 43 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... s to whether the penalty imposed was excessive or not. Indeed, in the order of the Tribunal it is stated So, we are not considering the other question as to whether if penalty is imposable the quantum imposed was excessive. This is an aspect of the matter which requires consideration by the Tribunal. In our advisory jurisdiction under s. 256(2) we are concerned only with answering of the question of law sent up for our opinion and should leave it to the Tribunal to pass consequential orders where necessary. In the result, we answer the question of law in the negative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. We make it clear that nothing said herein will preclude the Tribunal from passing appropriate consequential orders in accordance with law. 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 (8) TMI 42 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Income From Property, Income From Undisclosed Sources, Unexplained Investments ... ... ... ... ..... by the Tribunal with its findings in the extract quoted earlier. The Tribunal ought to have held that a sum of Rs. 10,000 was available for the investment that had been made in the accounting year relevant to the assessment for 1959-60, and should have given credit for the balance of Rs. 5,000. Accordingly, for that assessment year the unexplained investment would be Rs. 7,500 only. Therefore, question No. 1 in relation to the assessment year 1959-60 is answered as follows The Tribunal was not right in law in upholding the inclusion of Rs. 12,500 as income from undisclosed sources, but ought to have held that only a sum of Rs. 7,500 could be so included. Question No. 1 in relation to the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62 are answered in the affirmative. Question No. 2 in all the cases is answered in the negative and the Tribunal would have to decide the question afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
1978 (8) TMI 41 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Application For Extension, Delay In Filing Return ... ... ... ... ..... , in substance, already there in the proviso to sub-s. (2). In the case of the proviso to sub-s. (2), it will be illogical to read the opening part of the proviso to sub-s. (1) also before making the provisions of cl. (iii) applicable. The language under which cl. (iii) has been made applicable by the proviso to sub-s. (2) as well as by sub-s. (4) shows that the same interpretation has to be placed. Clause (iii) has to be made applicable to both these provisions in the same manner. For this as well as the other reasons mentioned by the Full Benches of the Andhra Pradesh and Gauhati High Courts, we are of the opinion that interest is chargeable in a case where the assessee does not apply for extension of time but files the return beyond the time fixed by the notice under s. 130(2). In this view, we answer the questions referred to us in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The Commissioner will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (8) TMI 40 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Withdrawal Of Development Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... 2.-Is also answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. As to question No. 3, we note that s. 155 of the Act of 1961, as also s. 35 of the Act of 1922, provide that the development rebate initially allowed will be deemed to have been wrongly allowed if a ship is sold or otherwise transferred by the assessee to any person other than the Government at any time before the expiry of a prescribed period from the end of the previous year in which the ship wag acquired. In the instant case, the assessee admittedly sold or transferred the ships though for scrapping. It has not been found that, at the time of transfer, the ships had ceased to be ships and had become scrap. The purpose of the sale or transfer in our view is not relevant in deciding whether the development rebate allowed would be withdrawn or not. Accordingly, we answer question No. 3 in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. The reference is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1978 (8) TMI 39 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Expenditure On Litigation, Income From Other Sources, Litigation Expenses, Rental Income, Wholly And Exclusively
-
1978 (8) TMI 38 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Income Tax Act, Remuneration Paid To Directors ... ... ... ... ..... ome to a proper conclusion bearing in mind the various relevant circumstances, considered even from a businessman s point of view, and also bearing in mind what was subsequently allowed as a deduction by the ITO. We think that, in the circumstances, this would be the proper course to adopt. In the result, the question referred to us is answered as follows We find from the order of the Tribunal that the disallowance of the amount of Rs. 29,100 out of the total remuneration of Rs. 57,600 paid to the directors and other persons of the assessee-company during the assessment year 1964-65 has not been properly considered, and we, accordingly, set aside the order of the Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to apply its mind to the question afresh bearing in mind the relevant circumstances as indicated, adopting a proper approach and also taking into consideration what has been allowed as proper remuneration in the subsequent year. The parties will bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1978 (8) TMI 37 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
A Firm, Gift Tax, Partnership Deed ... ... ... ... ..... n of a partnership, particularly a professional partnership as arises in the instant case, was one without any consideration. Thus, it is quite clear that the Division Bench has clearly taken the view that where in a sole proprietary concern a new partner is taken up as a partner and is given a share not only in the profits and losses but including the goodwill, there is no gift of the goodwill as there is consideration in money s worth. It is unnecessary, therefore, to refer to the other cases that have been cited at the Bar nor is it necessary to decide the various other contentions which have been urged by Mr. Dastoor on behalf of the assessee as, in our opinion, there is consideration in money s worth and the transfer cannot amount to a gift within the meaning of s. 2(xii) of the Act and the liability to gift-tax cannot arise. Accordingly, our answer to the question referred to us is in the negative and against the revenue. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1978 (8) TMI 36 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... peal, the AAC annulled the assessment. The revenue moved a second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the transaction was a sort of family settlement by partial partition. By this the co-sharers in the family were allowed shares, though they were themselves co-owners. The documents could not hence be validly called gifts. The different portions of land were marked and were given to five sons and to the widow of a pre-deceased son. We have no hesitation in holding that the Tribunal has committed no error in holding that, the transaction was one of family settlement. In that view, the transfers could not validly be treated as deeds of gifts. In this view, it is not necessary to decide on the alternative plea that the karta of a HUF cannot gift his immovable property to his family members. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (8) TMI 35 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Allowable Expenditure, Business Expenditure, Expenditure Incurred, Guest House, Wholly And Exclusively
-
1978 (8) TMI 34 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Notice Of Reassessment, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... ances of the case, it cannot be held that the notice has been issued without jurisdiction, so that it can be quashed by this court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Of course, I hasten to add that my observation while rejecting the prayer to quash the notice should not be interpreted to mean that the two conditions requisite for exercise of the power under s. 147 of the Act have been fulfilled. My finding aforesaid is only for the purpose as to whether the notice should be quashed in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this court or not. The respondent-ITO has to consider now on the materials which are on the record of the case or which may be produced on behalf of the petitioner as to whether the two conditions precedent for exercise of jurisdiction under s. 147 of the Act have been fulfilled or not. In the result, the writ application fails and it is dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. VISHWANATH MISRA J.--I agree.
-
1978 (8) TMI 33 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Family Property, HUF Property, Income Tax Act, Share Income ... ... ... ... ..... he benefit of the wife or minor children. The effect of this provision is that where a member has converted his separate property into joint family property on or after 1st January, 1970, the part of the income from the converted property proportionate to that member s interest in the joint family property is taxable as his income and not as income of the joint family. The words in so far as it is attributable to the interest of the individual in the property of the family occurring in cl. (b) of this sub-section were omitted by the Taxation Laws (Amend.) Act, 1975, with effect from 1st of April, 1976. It would be seen that the provisions contained in s. 64(2) are very clear and admit of no doubt and the Appellate Tribunal was right in confirming the inclusion of interest and the share income in the income of the assessee. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the department. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1978 (8) TMI 32 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Assessment Proceedings, Burden Of Proof, Income Tax Act, Proof On Revenue ... ... ... ... ..... in support of his case in spite of opportunity being given to that effect. In our opinion, it was not open to the IAC to impose such penalty on the basis of such conduct of the assessee alone. That, in our opinion, is not sufficient. Accordingly, in our opinion the Tribunal was justified in passing the order as it did. We may also point out in this context that Mr.Bhattacharya was justified in pointing out that as the IAC did not take any step under s.131 of the Act, it cannot be said that the revenue has made all attempts to prove its case. Accordingly, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. We hold that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and on a proper interpretation of the order of penalty passed by the IAC, the Tribunal was right in holding that the factual foundation for the levy of penalty was not established and the levy of penalty was, therefore, wrong. There will be no order as to costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.--I agree.
-
1978 (8) TMI 31 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Any Remuneration, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ompany cannot be judged by considering the number of hours of work put in or the kind of physical or hard labour done by them. The benefit has to be considered from the point of view of the company as a prudent man of business by applying one s mind to all the relevant facts and circumstances. It appears to us that the Tribunal did not apply its mind to the new facts which were brought to its notice on behalf of the assessee. It also appears that the Tribunal did not apply the correct legal principle in disallowing the part of the remuneration of only one of the directors. We remand the matter to the Tribunal for a proper consideration of the new facts which were relevant for determination of the quantum of remuneration or allowance payable to its directors. The Tribunal will consider the said facts and determine the matter in accordance with law indicated earlier. This reference is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. BIMAL CHANDRA BASAK J.--I agree.
-
1978 (8) TMI 30 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT
Firm Assessment, Writ Petition ... ... ... ... ..... was a much later act. Any statement made by the petitioner which is referred to in the reply affidavit was not a statement in the particular assessment proceeding of Kashmir Motors but related in general to the firms of the family of Bakshi Gulam Mohammad and, in the same sequence, enquiry was held by Justice Iyyengar. This has not been rebutted by the respondent in any manner. It is, therefore, clear that the affirmations made in the reply affidavit have reference to distinct and separate matter and, proceeding and has no reference to the time when the assessment of the firm was made in the year 1965. For the foregoing reasons, as the petitioner had no notice either under s. 143 or ss. 156 and 274 of the I.T. Act and, therefore, the impugned orders suffer from serious legal infirmity and are not sustainable in the eye of law. The result is that the impugned orders are hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The respondent may proceed in, the case according to law.
-
1978 (8) TMI 29 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Bona Fide, Cross Gift, High Court, Income Tax Act, Mistake Apparent From Record, Rectification Of Mistakes
-
1978 (8) TMI 28 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Estate Duty, Exemption From Wealth Tax, Property Deemed To Pass ... ... ... ... ..... basis for finding the nature of a particular property. In my opinion, the Tribunal s finding is neither perverse nor unreasonable having been based upon the order of the WTO. The said dharamshala has been treated to be one of a public, religious and charitable nature. The character of the said property cannot deviate for the purpose of E.D. assessment. The character of the property will always remain the same, notwithstanding the Act under which duty was to be levied on it. The Tribunal was, therefore, correct in holding that the property standing at holding No. 70 ward No. 2 of Saharsa Municipality was a property endowed for the purpose of public, religious and charitable purposes over which the deceased was not left with any power of disposition. Necessarily, therefore, the said property cannot be deemed to pass on the death of the deceased. The question, as reframed, is accordingly answered in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs. S. SARWAR ALI J.--I agree.
....
|
