|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 100 Records
-
1979 (6) TMI 21
Burden Of Proof, Cash Credits, Income Tax Act, Levy Of Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ven by the assessee, what has the department to do ? Should it merely go by the reasons given in the assessment order should it merely reject the explanation as not acceptable, or should it do something more in order to establish that there was conscious effort on the part of the assessee to play a fraud upon the department ? It is here that one has to understand the scope of the Explanation to s. 271. Where an assessee has given a cogent and satisfactory explanation, the onus will then shift to the department to show by some relevant material that the explanation offered by the assessee could not be true and was not probable. Say, for example, if the source of a cash credit in the name of the assessee s brother is explained by the assessee as having been actually received from the brother, the department may show that the assessee s brother was himself a wreck and that he could not have got much cash credit. Merely saying that the explanation was not acceptable would not do.
-
1979 (6) TMI 20
... ...
... ... ..... ower of appointment it was pointed out that the gift, if any, had been made under the trust deed and there was no gift by the person who had the power to nominate. As regards the surrender executed by the beneficiary under the trust deed, it was pointed out that it was not a disposition as it was a unilateral transaction. Here the transaction is one which is bilateral. The three clauses of the release deed extracted above will go to show that it is a bilateral transaction and it is only on that basis Ramani and Sakuntala have also joined in the execution of the release deed. The Tribunal has rightly held on this aspect in the present case that this is not a unilateral transaction. This is a clear case of transfer from the assessee to Ramani and Sakuntala of his interest in Schedules B and C. It is thus a case of gift. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The revenue will be entitled to costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500.
-
1979 (6) TMI 19
Capital Gains, Carrying On Business, Cost Of Acquisition, Immovable Property, In Part, Movable Property, One Partner, Set Off
-
1979 (6) TMI 18
Capital Expenditure, Managing Agent, Revenue Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... uld do far better than it did. As already pointed out, its connection with the assessee is too remote to permit allowance. The assessee relied on cl. 5 of the managing agency agreement as authorising the claim. Under that clause, the managing agent would have to use his best endeavour to promote the interests and business of the company. Even without this clause, the managing agent was bound to promote the interests and business of the managed company. If the interpretation placed on this clause is accepted the managing agent can take over any or every expenditure of the managed company. That was not the case of the assessee here. Such an interpretation cannot be accepted. As the assessee has not established that the expenditure had been incurred out of considerations of commercial expediency or on revenue account, the question has to be and is answered in the negative and against the assessee. The Commissioner will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee is fixed at Rs. 500.
-
1979 (6) TMI 17
Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... be in possession thereof they were not tenants. Even the Rathna Vilas Road property had not been let out. The value of the property would not depend upon the person occupying it. The Tribunal restored the valuation that had been made by the WTO without scrutinising the reasons given by him to reject the valuation made by the valuer even according to the land and building method which, as we have pointed out earlier, was not tenable. Having regard to the facts in the instant case, the course adopted by the AAC was just and reasonable and there was no ground to deviate from it so far as the self-occupied property was concerned when the Tribunal adopted it in regard to the Rathna Vilas Road property. The first question above-mentioned is answered as follows The Tribunal was not justified in confirming the valuation made by the WTO of the residential house and there was no justification to interfere with the valuation as had been made by the AAC. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
1979 (6) TMI 16
Revision, Revision By Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... arch 25, 1976. Mr. Bajoria has submitted that recently the Court of Exchequer in Scotland in Inland Revenue Commissioners v.Titaghur Jute Factory Co. Ltd. reported in Simon s Tax Cases (1978) page 166 has taken nearly a similar view in the matter of deduction of a company s obligation to pay gratuity to its employees in computing its profits. For the foregoing reasons, I make this rule absolute. Let a writ of certiorari issue quashing the impugned show-cause notice dated September 26, 1975, annex. E to the petition, and all further proceedings in pursuance of the said show-cause notice. Assessment orders, if any, passed in pursuance of the said notice, shall hereby stand quashed. Let a writ of mandamus issue commanding the respondents not to give any effect or further effect to the show-cause notice and to the proceeding held in furtherance of the said show-cause notice. There will be no order for costs. Let the operation of this order remain stayed for four weeks from date.
-
1979 (6) TMI 15
Failure To Disclose, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... iated within the period of four years as mentioned in cl. (b). In effect the conclusion was that if the reassessment in respect of that particular item was barred by time-limit mentioned in cl. (b) of s. 34(1) or s. 147 read with s. 153, as the case may be, then the ITO cannot bring to tax the said item in the other proceedings under s. 34(1)(a) or s. 147(a). It is not in dispute that in the light of this decision the development rebate could not have been withdrawn in the reassessment proceedings, as the time limit within which action could be taken under s. 147(b) had already been crossed. In these circumstances, the Tribunal acted rightly in directing the deletion of these two items for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59. The question referred at the instance of the Commissioner is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. As in both the questions the assessee has succeeded, the assessee will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500. One set.
-
1979 (6) TMI 14
Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... x from the dividends declared to the shareholders. It was in those circumstances that the acquittal of the managing director of offences under ss. 276(d) and 276B was confirmed by the Kerala High Court. Kapurchand Shrimal v. TRO 1969 72 ITR 623 (SC) was a case where the manager of an HUF was prosecuted for non-payment of tax by the family. Since the HUF, which is a distinct taxable entity, was the assessee, it was held that the manager cannot, for the purpose of s. 222, be deemed to be the assessee and proceeded against for non-payment of tax. The ratio in that case can have no application to the proceedings on hand. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition has to fail and will accordingly stand dismissed. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate is directed to dispose of the complaint expeditiously. It is, however, open to the petitioners to put forth other defences, if any, with reference to the evidence adduced in the case, about their not being guilty of contravention of s. 276B.
-
1979 (6) TMI 13
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... under certain circumstances contemplated by s. 147(b). Therefore, there is no error committed by the ITO in reopening the assessment in the present case. This is not a case of a mere review of his own decision by the ITO as is assumed in the question. It is a case where, Ls a result of information, the ITO found that the income assessable to tax of the assessee had either escaped assessment to some extent or had been assessed at too low a rate. This is not a case of change of opinion. Originally, he formed an opinion on the basis of the materials before him. Subsequently, fresh materials came to him to show that the earlier inference was wrong. There is no change of opinion on the same facts. Therefore, he had power to reopen the assessment and reassess the tax in accordance with the correct information before him. The second question is also, accordingly, answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The Commissioner will be entitled to costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1979 (6) TMI 12
Estate Duty, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... on in the present case. Consequently, the deceased would have been there only as a permissive user of the building. The expression exclusively used by the deceased for his residence would postulate the existence of a right of user and not a mere permissive user or user otherwise than under a right. Even assuming that permissive user or user otherwise than under a right is enough to satisfy the requirements of the provision, the user as residence in the present case is not exclusive because it is not stated that the donee after taking delivery of the building did not occupy the building. In the absence of proof of any exclusive user of the building by the deceased as of right, the requirement of the provision is not fulfilled in the present case. In this view, it is unnecessary to go into the other contentions advanced before, us. The result is that the question referred has to be answered in the negative and against the accountable person. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (6) TMI 11
... ...
... ... ..... might not materialise. This would indeed amount to speculation and the same is not permissible. Excursions to the realm of speculation may be legitimate and justified when one is engaged in the study of philosophy and metaphysics they are wholly unwarranted when one is dealing with the mundane subject of the status of the assessee for the purpose of the income-tax assessment. For this purpose we have to look to facts as they exist and emerge from the record and not to what they may or may not be in future. Having regard to the above passage and the fact that there was single individual here in the relevant year, it would be clear that the assessment made in the present case as a HUF would not be proper. There is no machinery pointed out to us on behalf of the revenue on the basis of which the assessment should be justified. The reference is, accordingly, answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to her costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1979 (6) TMI 10
Depreciation On Building, Income Tax Act, Income Tax Act, Income Tax Rules, New Industrial Undertaking, Priority Industry
-
1979 (6) TMI 9
Business Expenditure, Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... f carrying on its business as gratuity cannot be equated to a terminal payment on the closure of the business so as to be disallowed . This principle would apply to the present case. In the three cases, Stanes Motors case 1975 100 ITR 341 (Mad), Pathinen Grama Arya Vysya Bank s case 1977 109 ITR 788 (Mad) and the unreported decision in T.C. No. 284 of 1975- 1979 120 ITR 224 (Mad), the question to be considered was not whether the amount when paid to any workman was liable to be deducted. It is that situation which has arisen in the present case. In the present case, there has been payment directly to the employees as and by way of gratuity and the principle applicable to this case is different from the one applicable to mere cases of transfer of liability considered in the other three cases mentioned above. The result is that the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1979 (6) TMI 8
... ...
... ... ..... adequacy of consideration. The Tribunal has also taken into account the fact that the shareholders and the partners were the same and that there was no question of any profit to be made by the shareholders, which they would forgo. This cannot be said to be an irrelevant consideration in testing the adequacy of the consideration. The result is that question No. 1 in T.C. No. 343 of 1978 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The other questions, viz., questions Nos. 2 and 3, will go along with question No. 2 in T.C. No. 158 of 1975 and as we did not consider it necessary to answer the said question in T.C. No. 158 of 1975, we do not consider it necessary to answer these two questions also. The result is, as far as the three questions are concerned, the reference is returned unanswered. As far as the other two questions are concerned, they are already answered as indicated above. The assessee will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 one set.
-
1979 (6) TMI 7
Appeals, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... rein it was held that the limitation for preferring an appeal against the order of the AAC to the Tribunal would start from the date of the communication of the appellate order to the assessee. The memorandum of appeal to the AAC in the prescribed form requires the address of the appellant for sending notices. The address furnished in the prescribed form of appeal must be construed to be not only for the purpose of communication of the notice of appeal but also the notice of appellate order. The limitation for appeal to the Tribunal will start from the date of service of notice of the appellate order of the AAC on the appellant at the address given in the memorandum of appeal in the prescribed form. For the reasons stated, we quash the orders of the Tribunal and direct the Tribunal to receive the memoranda of appeals filed by the petitioner herein as they are within the period of limitation prescribed therefor. The petitioner in entitled to his costs. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1979 (6) TMI 6
Failure To Disclose Material Facts, Reassessment, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... oner and the orders reassessing the petitioner have also been passed. The petitioner has been served with the fresh assessment orders on March 13, 1979, and the petitioner is required to pay the tax accordingly. Mr. Dastur, submits that, in view of my judgment, the fresh assessment orders passed by the 1st respondent are required to be quashed and the petitioner is requesting permission to amend the petition and to seek this additional relief. Accordingly, a draft amendment is handed over to me. Mr. Kotval, for the revenue, has no serious objection to the grant of the amendment. Accordingly, I grant the amendment and direct that the petition should be amended within a period of one week from today. The petitioner is also entitled to the additional relief. The orders passed by the 1st respondent making fresh assessments in respect of the assessment years 1965-66 to 1970-71, are hereby quashed and set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (6) TMI 5
... ...
... ... ..... ssessee, one of the partners, for the purpose of the business of a mill of which he was the managing agent. Disputes arose between the partners and they were referred to an arbitrator. There was an award by the arbitrator which provided that the assessee should receive from the mill sum of Rs. 75,000 in full settlement of his claim for compensation for the use of the machinery by the mill. The question was whether this sum of Rs. 75,000 can be taxed in the hands of the assessee as his income. It was held that it was so liable to tax. That was only because the sum represented a revenue receipt in respect of the user of the machinery, or it was in the nature of the rent payable for the use of the machinery. In either event, it was a revenue receipt. This case also is not of assistance to the problem before us. The result is that the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and against the revenue. The assessee will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1979 (6) TMI 4
Agricultural Produce, Best Judgment Assessment, Failure To File Return, Income Tax ... ... ... ... ..... sing authority by the lapse of the assessee. It is further contended that the lands were in possession of the bargadars and under the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 75 per cent. of the produce is to be given to the bargadars leaving 25 percent. for owner assessee. In this case, there is no material before the assessing authority to establish that the lands were in the possession or cultivation of the bargadars. The assessing authority has allowed the maximum allowance permissible in law in computing the net income of the assessee. In these circumstances, I do not find that there is any mistake or error on the part of the assessing authority which can be interfered with in this jurisdiction. It is also obvious that the assessee had an alternative remedy by way of appeal on questions of fact which he failed to avail of. For all these reasons, as all the contentions of the assessee fail, this rule is discharged. All interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1979 (6) TMI 2
Agricultural Income, Expenditure Incurred, Legal Expenses, Travelling Expenses, Wholly And Exclusively
-
1979 (6) TMI 1
Income Tax, Public Interest, Voluntary Disclosure Scheme ... ... ... ... ..... completely satisfied in the present case as the circular gives the circumstances under which the rewards are granted. The voluntary disclosure scheme could only have been conceived in public interest as we do not see any other reason for this scheme coming into existence. If any person rendered sincere work to make this scheme a success, and if he is rewarded for it, such grant of reward cannot but be in public interest. There is no specific mode of approval indicated in the statute. No further approval is necessary or called for. The section is clear in its language and does not raise any problem of construction. Therefore, we do not find that any question of law arises out of the Tribunal s order. Even assuming that a question of law arises, the answer is self-evident and, therefore, the reference shall be wholly academic and unnecessary. The petition is accordingly dismissed. Only because the respondent appears in person and not through counsel, we do not award any costs.
|
