Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 97 of 97 Records
-
1979 (5) TMI 17
Failure To File Return, Firm Registration, Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... urns within the time prescribed by s. 139 of the Act. He further submits that the scheme of the Act shows that in case the firm fails to do so, it is not entitled to registration. In the present case, he urges, the return was filed late by the respondent and, therefore, was also not entitled to registration. We regret, we are unable to accept this contention of the learned counsel as well. Section 139 has no connection with ss. 184 and 185. There is no reference to the earlier section in the latter sections. It is true that the firms are required to file returns within a period prescribed by s. 139. However, if a firm fails to do so, the ITO is authorised to take action against the firm under s. 271 of the Act. He has no right to refuse registration on this ground. We, consequently, reject this contention of Mr. Awasthy. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the question in the affirmative, that is in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs. J. V. GUPTA J.--I agree.
-
1979 (5) TMI 16
The High Court ... ... ... ... ..... Gyan Chand got the amount of Rs. 20,000. He contends that the story of loan was plausible and the Tribunal misdirected itself in upholding that the cash credit in the name of Tarsem Lal was bogus and treating the amount as the income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. We do not find force in this contention of the learned counsel as well. The Tribunal after taking into consideration various circumstances rejected the statement of Tarsem Lal. One of the reasons given by the Tribunal for doing so was that the statement of Gyan Chand was not worthy of credence. In case both these statements are rejected, no question of law arises in this regard. It is evident that the assessee wants reference regarding those questions which are purely of facts and which have been decided by the Tribunal. In the circumstances, there is no merit in the petition. For the reasons recorded above, the petition fails and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. J. V. GUPTA J.-I agree.
-
1979 (5) TMI 15
Appeal To AAC, Application For Continuation Of Registration, Application For Registration, Registered Firm
-
1979 (5) TMI 14
Advance Tax, Income Tax Act, Question Raised Before Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ogale Glass Works Ltd. s case 1954 25 ITR 529 (SC) and other cases referred to by the counsel for the assessee is of general applicability. There is no provision in the Act or the rules which forbids the I.T. department from accepting cheques. It is for this reason that the department accepts payments by cheques. Mr. Awasthy has not been able to cite any precedent wherein it was held that the principle as laid down in Ogale Glass Works Ltd. s case 1954 25 ITR 529 (SC) will not be applicable if the payment is made by a cheque to the department. After taking in to consideration all the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the law governing the general transactions in this regard will govern the department also. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of Mr. Awasthy. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the department. No order as to costs. J. V. GUPTA J.--I agree.
-
1979 (5) TMI 13
Fact By Tribunal, Finding Of Fact, Question Of Fact ... ... ... ... ..... able from those of the present case and, therefore, the ratio therein will not apply to it. In Chandravilas Hotel s case 1978 115 ITR 118 (SC), the question referred to was whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding of the Tribunal that the assessee was not guilty of any fraud or gross or wilful neglect in returning the income at a figure less than 80 per cent. of the income assessed was arrived at without considering the entire material on record. The wording of the question itself shows that the department had challenged the finding of fact arrived at by the Tribunal. In the present case, as already adverted to above, the question sought to be referred by the department is different. In these circumstances, Mr. Awasthy cannot derive any benefit from the aforesaid cases. Consequently, there is no merit in the petition. For the reasons recorded above, the petition fails and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. J. V. GUPTA J.--I agree.
-
1979 (5) TMI 12
Criminal Prosecution, Raid By Excise Department, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... e three partners, including the petitioner herself, to the Commissioner dated February 28, 1974, making an admission that she had been sharing the profits that found a mention in the mundi behi. Prima facie this should give an inkling of the fact that if she was sharing the profits in that manner then she knew as to what was happening, but I express no final opinion in this regard. It is a matter which the court while trying the case would find for itself on the basis of the material adduced before it. As regards the passage of a considerable time between the abetment, if any, and the launching of the proceedings, it is, no doubt, there, but then placed as we are, such matters always take time, more so in these income-tax matters. If on the ground of lapse of time one is to take a lenient view, then every such person would go scot-free and none would be made answerable for his or her illegal arts. For the reasons stated, I find no merit in this petition and dismiss the same.
-
1979 (5) TMI 11
Levy Of Penalty, Reasonable Cause, Valuation Date ... ... ... ... ..... y assessee who is liable on the valuation date to pay wealth-tax shall furnish his return by the 30th of June of the corresponding assessment year. However, by going through s. 18(1)(a) which I have quoted above, penalty has to be imposed if the return is not filed within the time prescribed therein and it has got to be imposed on the basis of assessability as on the valuation date. In the instant case, the return had to be filed on 30th June, 1969. It is obvious, therefore, that penalty had to be imposed by taking into account the date by which the return had to be filed and not by taking into account the valuation date. The penalty having been imposed in accordance with the law as it stood on 1st April, 1969, it cannot be said that the penalty imposed is not in accordance with law. In the result, the reference is answered in the affirmative tin favour of the department and against the assessee. I would, however, make no order as to costs. S. SARWAR ALI, Actg. C.J.--I agree.
-
1979 (5) TMI 10
Capital Gains, Rate Applicable, Registered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... ing payable by the partners as well as the firm taken together. The impact of this proviso stands exhausted if once it is found that on the same amount of capital gains, the minimum 15 is paid by the firm. In this view of the matter, the answer to question No. 2 is in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. It is held that when the tax on capital gains is to be charged in the hands of the registered firm under s. 114 of the Act, then under the 1st proviso to s. 114(b)(ii), it would be payable in the case of a registered firm cumulatively with its partners at the minimum rate of 15 of the net capital gains and not separately. Thus, the answer to question No. 1, as posed, is in the negative, i. e., against the assessee and in favour of the revenue, whereas the answer to question No. 2 is in the affirmative, i. e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs in this petition. RAJENDRA NATH MITTAL J.--I agree.
-
1979 (5) TMI 9
Advance Payment, Business Expenditure, Capital Or Revenue Expenditure, Set Off, Speculation Loss, Speculative Transactions
-
1979 (5) TMI 8
... ... ... ... ..... ot be reasonably reached. As has been held by the Supreme Court in Sree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1957 31 ITR 28, such a finding as to whether the assessee carried on cloth business benami is a finding of fact the determination of such a fact does not involve the application of any legal principle to the facts established by the evidence and where the finding is one of fact, the fact that it is an inference from other basic facts does not alter its character as one of fact. See also Rai Bahadur Mohan Singh Oberoi v. CIT 1973 88 ITR 53 (SC). In view of the above conclusions, we hold that no question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal passed on April 29, 1974. We, therefore, decline to give a direction to the Appellate Tribunal to state a case and refer the three questions above under s. 256(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961. We reject the application and discharge the rule. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs. BAHARUL ISLAM, Actg. C.J.-I agree.
-
1979 (5) TMI 7
... ... ... ... ..... tion relating to the making, execution, discharge or satisfaction of the certificate filed under the Act, the suit was not maintainable in view of s. 37. The defendants have filed an application under s. 41, r. 27 of the CPC, praying for admitting in evidence a letter dated December 22, 1964, of the ITO, CC-VI, Calcutta, intimating the defendants that the assessment order of the ITO dated March 28, 1955, for the assessment years 1945-46 had been cancelled by the order dated January 10, 1959, of the AAC of Income-tax, Assam, Tripura and Manipur. In view of the said order of the AAC the ITO cancelled the demand of Rs. 2,26,843-4-0. In view of our above findings, we do not think that we require any additional evidence. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the judgment and decree of the learned subordinate judge and dismiss the suit with costs. The appeal is allowed, but in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we make no order for costs. SHARMA J.-I agree.
-
1979 (5) TMI 6
... ... ... ... ..... down clearly by the Supreme Court in other cases where the scope of inherent powers of a court has been considered. For the above reasons we hold that this court in seisin of a reference under the I.T. Act cannot exercise its inherent jurisdiction and issue an order of temporary injunction or stay of proceedings which is an injunction in an indirect form in respect of recovery of taxes. With respect we are unable to agree with the view taken by the Delhi Court in the case of L. Bansi Dhar and Sons 1978 111 ITR 330. We have also considered the application on its merits. No ground has been made out on which the petitioner can be said to be entitled to obtain a stay as prayed for. For the above reasons, we discharge the rule. All interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. We record our appreciation of the assistance rendered to us by Mr. P. P. Ginwalla as amicus curiae. There will be a stay of operation of this order for two weeks. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1979 (5) TMI 5
Income, Transfer ... ... ... ... ..... come of that year in the hands of the assessee, to my mind, was right in so taxing the said amount, also on account of the larger principle that the advance in question was not a genuine loan but was in the nature of an arrangement read with ss. 61 and 63(b) of the Act and, therefore, liable to be taxed in view of s. 61 of the Act in the hands of the assessee but when the Tribunal did not tax the interest amount in the hands of the assessee in the subsequent assessment years covered by I.T.Rs. Nos. 98, 99, 100, 101, 102 and 103 of 1977, in my opinion, it acted contrary to law and, therefore, its said orders suffer from an error of law. In the result, I answer I.T.R. No. 65 of 1974 in the affirmative, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee, and the questions referred to in I.T.Rs. Nos. 98, 99, 100, 101, 102 and 103 of 1977 are answered by me in the negative, against the assessee and in favour of the revenue, with costs in all the cases. AJIT SINGH BAINS J.-I agree.
-
1979 (5) TMI 4
Plea of estoppel is overruled which has found favour with the Commission and hold that the objection raised by the CIT is a potent interdict on the jurisdiction of the Commission - commissioner has statutory power u/s 245D(1) to object to the settlement on the presence of grave deviances - Settlement Commission should be inhibited from proceeding with the application of the assessee and the appeals by the assessee before the I.T.A.T. must be revived and disposed of expeditiously
-
1979 (5) TMI 3
Termination of services of directors and employees - compensation - assessee-company continued to function even after it was taken over - by termination, company was benefited by a reduction in its wage bill - payment of dompensation was on ground of commercial expediency - allowable as business expenditure
-
1979 (5) TMI 2
Interpretation of ss. 85A and 80M - whether rebate is admissible on the actual amount of dividend received by an assessee or it is confined only to the dividend income as computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, that is, after making the deductions specified in s. 57 including deduction of the interest paid on borrowings for making the investments - deduction is allowable u/s 80M with reference to the full amount of dividends and not net dividend income
-
1979 (5) TMI 1
Whether Tribunal was correct in holding that a registered firm was not entitled to have its losses in speculation business carried forward for set off against future profits in speculation business - held that where the assessee is a registered firm, for the purpose of set off and carry forward of the loss apportionment between the partners of the firm has got to be made and they alone are entitled to have the amount of the loss set off and carried forward for set off u/s 73
|