Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 180 of 187 Records
-
1978 (8) TMI 27 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Law Applicable ... ... ... ... ..... as and Allahabad High Courts See Amjad Ali Nazir Ali v. CIT 1977 110 ITR 419 (All) and CIT v. J. K. A. Subramania Chettiar 1977 110 ITR 602 (Mad) . The learned counsel for the department submitted that whenever a revised return is filed the earlier return merges in the revised return. For this submission, the learned counsel relied upon Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1973 90 ITR 236 (All). But the proposition submitted for acceptance has no application when the revised return, as in the instant case, is not covered by any provision of law and is really not a revised return under the law. For the reasons given above, our answer to the question referred to us is as follows The Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of section 271(1)(c) were applicable but the Tribunal was not right in holding that clause (iii) of section 271(1) as amended by the Finance Act, 1968 had application for fixing the quantum of penalty. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1978 (8) TMI 26 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Attributable To Priority Industry, Balancing Charge, Profits And Gains Attributable To ... ... ... ... ..... ome under s. 41(2) is computed, is attributable to the profits and gains of the assessee s business as a priority industry is correct in law ? The relevant phrase is profits and gains attributable to the assessee s business as specified industry . This phrase in s. 80E(1) was interpreted in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1978 113 ITR 84. The Supreme Court held that the expression attributable to is different from the expression derived from . The expression attributable to is wider in import. It includes within its ambit the balancing charge arising from the sale of old machinery and part of any such amount is to be regarded as profits and gains attributable to the business of the priority industry. In this view, the view taken by the Tribunal is upheld. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. As no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1978 (8) TMI 25 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
1961 Act, Act Of 1922, Assessment Year, Change Of Law, Delay In Filing Return ... ... ... ... ..... assessed under s. 139(4) of the Act of 1961 or under s. 148 thereof. Under s. 139(4) only the procedure of the new Act can be applied. There cannot be an imposition of a new liability as clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Govinddas 1976 103 ITR 123. If the assessment is made pursuant to a notice under s. 148, the provisions of the new Act which relate to the machinery of assessment would only be applicable. The substantive law for determining the liability of the assessee must necessarily be the earlier Act. For the reasons as aforesaid, we answer the questions referred as follows Question No. 1 is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative and also in favour of the assessee. The reference is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. It only remains to record our appreciation of the able assistance rendered to us by Mr. Pranab Kumar Pal as amicus curiae. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1978 (8) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
High Court, Prima Facie Case, Recovery Proceedings, Transfer Of Property ... ... ... ... ..... cated. Mr. Shelat says that in respect of the property which is the subject-matter of A.O. No. 31 of 1977 confirmation has already taken place and a sale certificate issued. That the department thereafter is not responsible to anything with reference to the auction purchaser of the property. If that is so, then it would be obvious that the injunction would be infructuous so far as that property is concerned . Interim injunction be, issued on the above terms restraining the defendant from confirming the sale. The amounts if deposited will remain in deposit till the decision of the suits subject to the final decision of the suits and would be payable according to the orders of the court. The trial court may consider the advisability of investing the amount in the meantime in fixed deposit for a specific period. Mr. Potey at this stage requested that permission to file Letters Patent Appeal may please be granted. Leave granted. There will be no order as to costs of this appeal.
-
1978 (8) TMI 23 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rejection Of Accounts, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... unreal. Clearly there is evidence to sustain it. That is equally true about the other inference drawn by the Tribunal that there was a connection between the unaccounted money and the extra profits withheld from the account books from year to year. That inference is based upon the testimony of the assessee. The assessee stated that it has no other source of income and the department accepted that position. Therefore, if the Tribunal inferred that there was a connection between the unaccounted money used in the business and the extra profits withheld from the books, from year to year, the inference cannot be said to be groundless. In this view, we are unable to hold that the findings of the Tribunal are speculative. In our opinion, they are fully supported by the material on record. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee shall be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (8) TMI 22 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Income From Property, Income From Undisclosed Sources, Unexplained Investments ... ... ... ... ..... ce during his lifetime, some reasonable deduction should be made in the value of the estate passing on the death of the deceased. The nature and incidents of the right of maintenance of a Hindu wife or widow has been explained by this court in Anandi Bai v. Sonabai Mahadev 1973 2 Mys LJ 267. A Division Bench of this court has held in that case that the right of maintenance is a personal right, which can be enforced against the property of the family by the creation of a charge on it, but is not proprietary in character and the claim by itself does not amount to a charge until it is fixed by a court or agreement between the woman and the holder of the estate. In the instant case there is no plea that there was any such decree of a court or agreement. In these circumstances, no allowance can be made in lieu of the maintenance,right of the wife in this case. The second question referred to us is answered in the affirmative. These two cases are disposed of accordingly. No costs.
-
1978 (8) TMI 21 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... owards the unmarried daughters. What the family would have been obliged to spend in money would be given in the form of movable or immovable property. That they do, as we have already observed, not quite voluntarily but only to discharge their legal obligation. Therefore, we hold that the provision made for the unmarried daughters towards their maintenance and marriage is not a gift within the meaning of s. 2(xii) of the Gift-tax Act. Nor could it be deemed to be a gift under any of the clauses of s. 4. When the said provision made in the partition deed in favour of the unmarried daughters is thus by way of discharge of a legal obligation, it is not a gift at all which comes within the ambit of the G.T. Act. The Tribunal is very much right in taking the view that the provision to the unmarried daughters is not liable to gift-tax. Therefore, there is no need to refer the second question either. In the result, the income-tax case is rejected. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1978 (8) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Cross Transfer ... ... ... ... ..... can be drawn from the facts found, then the Tribunal and the court would be justified in applying s. 16(3)(a)(iii) and (iv) to the same. In the result, it must be held that the Tribunal was correct in applying these two statutory provisions. The question, however, as framed, does not appear to us to be happily worded bearing in mind the very clear and specific orders passed by the ITO, the AAC and the Tribunal. Accordingly, we reframe the question as under Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the gifts of the shares of Modern, transferred to the names of the assessee s wife and his minor children, attract the provisions of section 16(3)(a)(iii) and (iv) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and were includible in the assessee s total income for the assessment years 1957-58, 1958-59, 1959-60, 1960-61 and 1961-62 ? The question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. The assessee will pay to the Commissioner the costs of the reference.
-
1978 (8) TMI 19 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Development Rebate Reserve, Industrial Undertaking, Instructions Issued By CBDT, Supreme Court
-
1978 (8) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Accounting Year ... ... ... ... ..... se (ix) there is nothing unusual in the view that has been taken by the Calcutta High Court in this case and no special reason is pointed out why we should differ from the view that has been taken by the Calcutta High Court in this case. Reference was made on behalf of the assessee to the provisions of the Explanation which was added by the Finance (No. 2) Bill, 1977. It is unnecessary to consider the effect of the Explanation because it is specifically stated in the objects and reasons of the Bill that the amendment will take effect from April 1, 1977, and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 1977-78 and subsequent years. Since, in the present case, the question referred to us pertains to assessment years 1962-63 and 1964-65, the provisions of this Finance Bill are entirely of no assistance to the assessee. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. The assessee shall pay the costs of the revenue.
-
1978 (8) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Company, Shipping Company ... ... ... ... ..... suffered by a company in the subsequent year is not a relevant consideration under s. 23A of the 1922 Act. Bat it is not only a pure obiter but is also unsupported by any reason. That apart, we are not concerned with any loss but with the reason able requirements of the future , which expression must necessarily include the future needs of the assessee, that is to say, the requirements of the next year which may be ascertained by the prudent directors of the assessee before the annual general meeting of the earlier year is held which must necessarily be held after the close of the accounting year and, accordingly, the contention of Mr. Bagchi must fail. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that the prudent directors of the assessee and the assessee respectively were fully justified in not recommending and declaring any dividend for this year and, therefore, I agree with the answer given by my learned brother and also with the order relating to costs made by him.
-
1978 (8) TMI 16 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Expenditure Incurred, Jurisdiction Of Court, Jurisdiction Of High Court, Jurisdiction To Reassess, Notice Of Reassessment, Reason To Believe, Writ Jurisdiction
-
1978 (8) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Income From Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... sessees income from undisclosed sources in the two years in question inasmuch as they were introduced in the books at the relevant time and as the assessees explanation for the source and origin of the gold which was got melted has been found unacceptable. The assessees cannot be permitted to give an unacceptable explanation and rest content requiring the department to show that they had purchased or secured the gold or gold ornaments from some source in these years or got such gold melted and then disposed of the bars to bring cash amounts into their books. In the result, the questions are answered as follows Question No. 1 There was material to support the Tribunals s findings that the two sums were liable to be assessed as undisclosed income of the assessees, and the Tribunal s findings are not based on conjectures, suspicion and surmises. Question No. 2 In the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. The assessees will pay to the Commissioner the costs of the reference.
-
1978 (8) TMI 14 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose ... ... ... ... ..... lso made by Mr. Joshi to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Indian Sugar Mills Association 1974 97 ITR 486. This case, in our opinion, is of no assistance to Mr. Joshi because the object with which the respondent-association was formed permitted, inter alia, to declare dividends and distribute profits. We are not concerned with a case of this type and there is no similarity whatsoever between the facts of that case and the facts with which we are concerned. In our opinion, the functions of the Bar Council as intended in s. 6 of the Advocates Act, 1961, are such that it is clearly a body constituted for general public utility and the entire income of such a body will be exempt from tax for the relevant assessment years with which we are concerned, in view of the provisions of s. 11 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The revenue shall pay the costs of the assessee.
-
1978 (8) TMI 13 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ue. No one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The Tribunal s order shows that none appeared before the Tribunal either. The Tribunal has found that the account books were rejected on the ground that there was suppression of sales to the extent of Rs. 4,014. The detection was of material concealment of income to the extent of Rs. 1,003 and the rest of the addition to the returned income was on estimate. In our opinion, these are findings of fact. In the special circumstances of the present case, the Tribunal had no material to prove the concealment of income which could form the basis of imposable penalty equal to the income added. This view is taken on the facts and circumstances of the present case. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. As no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee, there will be no order as to costs. The fee of the learned counsel for the department, however, is assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1978 (8) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Company, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ? This question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. Mr. Sengupta has drawn our attention to a certain observation in the earlier judgment of this court in Duncan Brothers and Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1978 111 ITR 885 (Cal) which might lead to difficulties in actual computation. We make it clear that the Tribunal will have to take into account first the amount of capital as computed under r. 1 of the Second Schedule to the Act. Thereafter, the Tribunal will have to determine the cost of the assets, the income from which is required to be excluded from its total income in computing its chargeable profits in accordance with cl. (iii), cl. (vi) and cl. (viii) of r. 1 of the First Schedule, whichever may be applicable. Thereafter, the Tribunal will have to diminish from the amount of capital the excess of the cost of such investments over the amount of these funds. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1978 (8) TMI 11 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Cash Credits, Limitation, Return ... ... ... ... ..... open to the revenue to enquire into the question whether in fact the amount is the declarant s income or not or of the source from where the declarant obtained the money. But we make it clear that this would not prevent the revenue authorities from enquiring the genuineness of a loan shown by a third person, who alleges that the money was received from a person who may be a declarant under the said Finance Act. The enquiry will be necessarily confined to the question as to whether in fact the loan was received from the declarant. The enquiry cannot go further and the source of the money in the hands of the declarant cannot be investigated. For the reasons as stated above, we answer the questions referred as follows Question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. Question No. 2 is answered in the affirmative and also in favour of the revenue. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1978 (8) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... included by the ITO in the computation of the capital of the company for the purpose of the aforesaid Act which was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. He directed the ITO to modify the assessment by excluding Rs. 70,33,000 from the computation of the capital of the company for the purpose of assessment under the Act. The assessee then filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Tribunal in view of Expl. 1 to r. 2 of the said Schedule to the Act. The material portion of the Explanation reads as follows Explanation 1-....reserve brought into existence by creating or increasing (by revaluation or otherwise) any book asset is not capital for computing the capital of a company for the purposes of this Act. Mr. R. N. Bajoria, counsel for the assessee fairly and rightly submits that this case falls within the Explanation and, therefore, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. There will be no order for costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1978 (8) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business, Dealer In Shares ... ... ... ... ..... d not result in a profit and dismissed this part of the appeal. Thereafter, the Tribunal rejected the application made by the assessee under s. 256(1) of the Act but a Division Bench of this court called for the aforesaid questions at the instance of the assessee. It has not been found by the Tribunal that the cost price of 55,100 shares should be taken at Rs. 5,51,000 and not at Rs. 1,45,000 in its appellate order and, therefore, question No. 1 does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal and accordingly this reference is incompetent so far as this question is concerned and we, therefore, decline to answer it. In view of the decision of the House of Lords in the case of Westminster Bank Ltd. v. Osler (Inspector of Taxes) 1933 1 ITR 65 (HL) and decision of this court in the case of United Bank of India Ltd. v. CIT 1963 50 ITR 258 (Cal) we answer question No. 2 in the affirmative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1978 (8) TMI 8 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Firm, Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... goodwill. Similarly, if there is any capital contribution by or on behalf of the minors who are admitted to the benefits of the partnership, there can be no gift in respect of the goodwill. If neither of these two ingredients is present, then on the facts of the present case, so far as the assessee was concerned, by reason of the reconstitution of the firm there was a gift by the assessee of the 20 share in the goodwill in favour of his minor sons, Manharlal and Arvind and the value to be put on such 20 of the goodwill will depend upon the facts of the case which may be determined having regard to the state of accounts of the partnership. Accordingly, the question referred to us is answered in the negative, but the question whether there was a gift or not will depend upon the determination of the facts as we have indicated earlier. Having regard to the state of law in respect of similar transactions, the fair order as to costs will be that each party will bear its own costs.
....
|