|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 146 Records
-
1979 (3) TMI 46 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Registered Firm, Unregistered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... the basis that interest payable under cl. (iii) of the proviso to s. 139(1) was quasi-penal. As earlier pointed out by us above, this distinction does not make any difference in the applicability of the reasoning of the Supreme Court in Jain Brothers case 1970 77 ITR 107. As rightly pointed out by the Gujarat High Court in Chhotalal and Co. s case 1976 105 ITR 230 all that the Legislature has done in clause (iii)(a) of the proviso to section 139(1) is to withhold privilege which is otherwise extended to a registered firm . The Gujarat High Court held the provision valid and, in our opinion, rightly, even though it held that the interest payable under the impugned provision is by way of compensation and not a penalty. We respectfully agree with the view taken by the Gujarat High Court. The impugned provision does not suffer from the vice of discrimination. The petition fails and is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.The security amount be refunded to the petitioner.
-
1979 (3) TMI 45 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Proposed Transfer ... ... ... ... ..... hat is why the cases were transferred to the ITO, Kanpur, because the only other Central Circle office in Uttar Pradesh is at Kanpur. Learned counsel for the petitioners has invited our attention to Ajanta Industries v. CBDT 1976 102 ITR 281 (SC), that a reasoned transfer order must not only be passed but must also be communicated to the assessee. In that case, the assessee had appeared and objected to the transfer. In the present case, the assessees did not appear and no objection was filed to the proposed transfer. The Board could hence believe that the assessees had no objection. In this situation, it will be an idle formality to quash the order for non-communication of the order of transfer to the assessees. Moreover, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that they will furnish a copy of the reasoned order to the petitioners within a month from today. Subject to these observations, the writ petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed, but we make no order for costs.
-
1979 (3) TMI 44 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Commercial Profit, Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... proved and they are being considered for the purpose of computation of the commercial profits. Having heard the learned counsel for the assessee at considerable length, we are not satisfied that there is any evidence in this case to establish that there was any joint venture between the assessee-company and Naraindas Bhimji which would enable the assessee to set apart 50 per cent. of the share of the profit in question so as to have them left out of consideration for the purpose of computation of commercial profits. We must, therefore, set aside the decision of the Tribunal that the provisions of s. 23A would not be attracted in the present case. The AAC, in our view, was justified, after taking into consideration the entire evidence in this case, in holding that the provisions of s. 23A (1) were applicable in the case of the assessee. The question referred to us is, therefore, answered in the negative and against the assessee. The assessee to pay the costs of this reference.
-
1979 (3) TMI 43 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Foreign Company, Wealth Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... to own any premises or to hold any premises under a leasehold or licence. It must be held that the assessee is carrying on its business from the office of its agents. This is the law which was laid down in the case of Saccharin Corporation Ltd. 1911 2 KB 516 (CA) and in Re Tovarishestve 1944 2 All ER 556 (Ch D), where it was held that the business could even be carried on from a hotel where the director of the foreign company was put up temporarily. In the case of World Harmony 1965 2 All ER 139, it was held that the foreign shipping company was carrying on business in England at the accommodation address of its agents. For the above reasons, we hold that the assessee, a company incorporated outside India, has a place of business in India and, therefore, is a company within the meaning of s. 2(h) of the W.T. Act, 1957. We answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. The reference is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (3) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Firm Registration, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... en steps in this court for the production of the necessary material which could have been made part of the statement of the case, if he had so desired. We may also point out that, referring to the law relating to the application for renewal of registration, the Supreme Court has in Sher-e-Punjab Silk Stores v. CIT 1973 88 ITR 421, pointed out that from the relevant provisions it is clear that in the case of an application for renewal of registration of a firm it is incumbent on the part of the assessee-firm to have divided the previous year s profits before it makes its application for renewal. The Supreme Court has in that case referred to rr. 2, 3 and 6 of the Indian I.T. Rules, 1922, and s. 26A of the Indian I.T. Act. 1922. In our view, there is no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal, the AAC as well as the ITO. The reference must, therefore, be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The assessee to pay the costs of this reference.
-
1979 (3) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Carrying On Business, Income Tax Act, Indian Company, Raw Material, Technical Services ... ... ... ... ..... ot. As we read s. 80MM of the Act we are of the opinion that it is implicit in the said section that the provision of technical know-how must directly assist in the manufacture or processing of goods or material or in the installation or erection of machinery or plant for such manufacture or processing or in any one or more of the other operations or activities specified in sub-s. (1) of s. 80MM. On perusal of the agreements and the reports submitted by the petitioner-company, we are not satisfied that the agreement, in any way, fulfilled these requirements. The job assigned to the petitioner-company has got a very remote relationship, if any, with the manufacture or transfer of technical know-how. As such we are of the opinion that the Board was justified in rejecting the applications for approval and the decision of the Board does not call for any interference by this court. Accordingly, these two writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. Petitions dismissed.
-
1979 (3) TMI 40 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Additional Super Tax, Income Tax, Interest On Deposit, Undistributed Profits ... ... ... ... ..... usiness is its primary business. From the facts found and the material on record it appears that the assessee in the instant case is carrying on a systematic and organised activity of earning profits from investments made in, (a) shares of other companies, and (b) deposit of its surplus funds with its allied concerns earning interest. The latter activity, in our view, is definitely an investment in the ordinary or popular sense of the term. It is also evident that the said business of the assessee was not only its primary business but the only business in the said years. The assessee, in our view, therefore, came within the mischief of s. 23A of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, read with Expln. 2(i) thereto. The dividends declared by the assessee in the relevant years being short of the statutory percentage as required under the said section, the question referred is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue. There will be no order as to costs. D. K. SEN J.--I agree.
-
1979 (3) TMI 39 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Default In Payment, Income Tax Act, Levy Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ltimately to be adjusted towards the amount of tax finally assessed by the ITO. Thus, the entire catena of decisions above noted is against the assessee-company s contention which was urged before the Tribunal and which is repeated before us. It appears to us unnecessary to set out in extenso the statutory provisions which have been fully noted and considered in the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Swastik Engineering Works case 1973 87 ITR 116. We are in respectful agreement with the views expressed therein and in accordance therewith the question referred to us will have to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Commissioner. No other point was canvassed before us and the other questions which were urged before the Tribunal do not fall to be determined by us in this reference. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Commissioner. The assessee will pay to the Commissioner the costs of this reference.
-
1979 (3) TMI 38 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Flat Rate, Income Tax Act, Person Responsible For Paying, Tax At Source ... ... ... ... ..... view that it cannot be said that s. 194C(1) is violative of art. 31 of the Constitution. Mr. Rajgarhia, for the revenue, referred to the cases 1975 98 ITR 403 (Guj) (Vallabhadas Manjibbhai Dholakia v. CIT) and 1974 95 ITR 197 (Delhi) (Mahavir Metal Works P. Ltd. v. Union of India) in support of the submission that s. 194C(1) did not infringe art. 31 of the Constitution. The question that fell for consideration in the first case was whether information relating to a contract which has to be furnished under s. 285A of the I.T. Act violated art. 19(1)(f) and (g) and art. 14 of the Constitution. It was held that there was no infringement of those articles by that section. In Mahavir Metal Works P. Ltd. s case 1974 95 ITR 197 (Delhi) the submission that Chap. XXA of the I.T. Act violated arts. 14, 19 and 31 was rejected. For the reasons given, there is no merit in this application which is dismissed. I would, however, make no order as to costs. S. SARWAR ALI, Actg. C.J.--I agree.
-
1979 (3) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... ll its employees calculated at 15 days salary for every completed year of service under the transferor-company. Thus, in that case, there was actual payment of gratuity amounts to the employees concerned. Therefore, the facts in that case are entirely different. The court in that case specifically found that there is no transfer of the entire business and that there was actual expenditure by way of payment of gratuity amounts to the employees which is a legal obligation which the transferor-bank had to discharge. Once the expenditure has been shown to have been incurred in connection with the business, s. 37(1) of the Act has necessarily to apply. Therefore, the decision in that case cannot be taken advantage of by the assessee. On the facts of this case, we are of the view that s. 37(1) will not stand attracted. In this view, we have to answer the question in the negative and in favour of the revenue. The revenue will have its costs from the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 300.
-
1979 (3) TMI 36 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Carrying On Business, Indian Company, Manufacture Or Processing Of Goods ... ... ... ... ..... particular cases a finding that it forms part of the process of manufacture may be justified. In each case it is, in my view, a question of fact. (Lord Advocate v. Reliant Tool Company 1968 3 ITR 70 1681 1 WLR 205, 213 (HL). The judgment by the Board as to whether the drawings constitute technical know-how would have to be based on expert engineering advice and would have to be reasonable. In para. (x) itself it is recognised that a turnkey contract will not qualify for approval unless the supplier is also required under the agreement to provide technical know-how. The Board has to consider, therefore, whether the contract drawings required to be supplied by the contractor constitute technical know-how. We, therefore, allow the Writ petition, quash the impugned order and direct the Board to reconsider the application of the petitioner for approval under s. 80MM of the I.T. Act, 1961, in the light of the above observations. There will be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.
-
1979 (3) TMI 35 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... see under sub-section, (2) shall be accompanied by a fee of twenty-five rupees. The Madras High Court while interpreting s. 33A has clearly laid down that the remedies of appeal and revision are alternative and the assessee could avail any one of them. It has been further laid down that merely because the assessee did not file an appeal against the assessment order that by itself will not deprive him of the right to file a revision directly before the Commissioner. We agree with the view taken by the Madras High Court in Sreenivasalu s case 1948 16 ITR 341. The learned single judge, in our opinion, was in error when he held that the revision cannot be filed directly to the Additional Commissioner without taking recourse to the statutory remedy of appeal provided under s. 48 of the Act. We, therefore, allow this special appeal and set aside the order of the learned single judge and direct that the Additional Commissioner shall decide the revision application according to law.
-
1979 (3) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Acquisition Of Immovable Property, Appeal To High Court, Income Tax Act, Movable Property, Question Of Law
-
1979 (3) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Property Deemed To Pass ... ... ... ... ..... he particulars of the property covered by s. 9 had been disclosed but the complaint, however, is that the fair market value of the property had not been disclosed in the return. If s. 60(1)(c) is not to apply to a case where the particulars of the property are not given, naturally it cannot be applied to a case where the accountable person had furnished inaccurate particulars. On the facts and circumstances of this case therefore, the principles laid down in CED v. Gowrishankar Damani 1977 109 ITR 649 (Mad) will squarely apply. In this view, we have to set aside the order of penalty holding that s. 60(1)(c) cannot be applied to the facts of this case. Having regard to the fact that we are holding that the penalty cannot be levied under s. 60(1)(c) by the appellate authority in the circumstances of the case, it is unnecessary for us to consider the petitioner s contention based on the invalidity of s. 60(1)(c). The writ petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (3) TMI 32 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Acquisition Of Immovable Property, Acquisition Proceedings, Association Of Persons, Body Of Individuals, Income Tax Act, Movable Property
-
1979 (3) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Agricultural Income Tax, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... y. The gift or settlement was, in legal effect, the act of the joint family of which the assessee was the karta. There was no transfer of any property in favour of a minor child by the joint family as such, as it cannot have a minor child, though the minor child may form part of it. To a similar effect is the decision of a learned single judge of this court in K.Arunachalam Mudaliar v. Commr. of Agrl. I.T. 1978 111 ITR 780. In that case, the settlement was in favour of the wife but, as the property was the joint family property, the provisions of s. 9(2)(a) were held to be inapplicable. Section 9(2) would apply only to an individual and not to a joint Hindu family and it would apply only to a transfer of the individual s own separate property and not to the transfer by him of joint family property. For these reasons, the provisions of s. 9(2)(a)(iv) cannot be applied and the order of the Board is set aside. The tax cases are allowed with costs. Counsel s fee, Rs. 250 one set.
-
1979 (3) TMI 30 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Association Of Persons, Body Of Individuals, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... licability of the decision. Whatever may be the position regarding the applicability of the Supreme Court s decision to the facts in the case before the Andhra Pradesh High Court still as far as the case before as is concerned, we find that it has great relevance. As against the gift in the Supreme Court s decision, there are sales in the case before us. If two owners executing a gift deed in respect of certain properties could not be a body of individuals for the purpose of assessment to gift-tax similarly the tenants-in-common executing a sale deed would not constitute a body of individuals. There must be something more than joining together and executing a document to bring the co-owners together as a body of individuals. In the present case, on the facts, we hold they do not constitute a body of individuals . In the result, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 one set.
-
1979 (3) TMI 29 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Act Of 1961, Assessment Year, Cash Credits, Income Tax Act, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... of the Act of 1961, the assessment had to be made here in accordance with the procedure specified in the later Act. Accordingly, the assessment was made under s. 143(3) thereof in the assessment year 1962-63. This was accepted by the assessee without any objection and it would be deemed to have exercised its option by implication under s. 3(1)(b) of the Act of 1961 and would be assessed in the previous year ending on the 31st March, 1962, the accounts of the assessee being made up to the 31st December, 1961, within that financial year. The law in force in the assessment year 1962-63 was the I.T. Act, 1961, and s. 68 of the said Act would apply to the said cash credits. The fact that the said cash credits were entered in the financial year ended on the 31st March, 1961, was therefore, of no consequence. For the above reasons, we answer the question referred in the negative and in favour of the revenue. There will, however, be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1979 (3) TMI 28 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Cash Credits, Income Tax Act ... ... ... ... ..... We answer the first part of question No. 1 in the affirmative, that is, against the assessee, and in favour of the revenue. On the second part of question No. 1 we find no ground or material for interfering with the order of the Appellate Tribunal and in holding that the addition of Rs. 49,700 was unwarranted and illegal. We answer the second part of question No. 1 in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 2 In view of our finding on question No. 4, question No. 2 does not arise for consideration and we give no answer to the said question. Question No. 3 Again, in view of our finding on question No. 4, question No. 3 does not arise for consideration and we decline to answer the said question. In the result, the questions are answered as indicated above. We make 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.
-
1979 (3) TMI 27 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Advance Tax ... ... ... ... ..... 214 of the I.T. Act amounts to refund and that, as the same is delayed, the petitioner is entitled to claim interest under s. 243 of the Act. We find no force in this contention. The refund contemplated is refund of the excess amount paid as tax. Interest payable on the excess amount under s. 214 of the I.T. Act does not amount to refund of any amount paid as tax. The claim made by the petitioner under s. 243 of the I.T. Act is, therefore, negatived. The respondent has informed the petitioner by a letter that the claim for interest is not admissible. It does not amount to an order which the petitioner could have carried in revision before the CIT. Being so, we find no merit in the objection taken by the revenue that no relief should be given to the petitioner while exercising our jurisdiction under art. 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.
....
|
