|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 205 Records
-
1980 (7) TMI 85 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Business Profits, Deemed Profit ... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal, we are satisfied that it cannot be held that in the settlement which was arrived at before the High Court of Calcutta, there was a complete rebate ofthe interest, as the order of the Calcutta High Court which is at pp. 6 and 7 of the paper book states that leave was granted to the official liquidator to accept Rs. 1,65,000 in full satisfaction of the claim, interest and costs against the debtor . Thus, interest was also taken into consideration while allowing settlement at Rs. 1,65,000. It would be a conjecture to try to find out how much remission was given on account of interest. So, it is not possible to identify conclusively the particular item for which remission was granted, and then how much for each item. Section 10(2A) was thus not available to the department because of what has been stated in Tirunelveli Motor Bus Service v. CIT 1970 78 ITR 55 (SC). In this view of the matter, we answer the question referred in the affirmative and against the department.
-
1980 (7) TMI 84 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Conveyance Allowance, Deductions From Salary ... ... ... ... ..... se, as pointed out earlier, in the course of that year an amount of Rs. 2,400 was paid to the assessee by his employer as conveyance allowance over and above the use of the car which was placed at his disposal. Since we have arrived at the conclusion that even for the assessment year 1969-70 the case of the assessee would fall under s. 16(v) so far as expenses incurred by him for the maintenance of his car were concerned, it is not necessary to go into the question of s. 10(14). Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to deduction on account of expenses incurred on the maintenance and use of the car under s. 16(v) of the Act for the assessment year 1968-69 and also for the assessment year 1969-70. We answer the question accordingly, in the affirmative, at least so far as the provisions of s. 16(v) for each of the two years are concerned. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1980 (7) TMI 83 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ng which the default had continued the assessee would be liable and the expression for every month during which the default had continued would not govern a period for which the tax had remained unpaid, but in determining the period during which the default had continued it (the period) is contemplated by s. 271 (1)(a). In this case, default upon which penalty was imposed was the delay in submission of the return. Therefore, the fact is that payment of the assessed tax on the basis of a registered firm would not exonerate the assessee from the imposition of the penalty on the basis that it was an unregistered firm calculating the default for the month for which the default had continued. In that view of the matter, question No. 1 must be answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue and, in that view of the matter, question No. 2 does not arise. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1980 (7) TMI 82 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... All that the chartered accountant has done in this case is to submit during the course of the hearing before the ITO that he was unable to sustain the claim for deduction (the aggregate claim amounted to Rs. 44,000 odd) to the extent of Rs. 15,000 and that in respect of the balance the claim may be allowed and the assessee may be exempted from any liability for penalty. It was fully within the competence of the chartered accountant to make such a representation before the ITO on behalf of the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings. We have, therefore, no hesitation to uphold as correct the conclusion recorded by the Tribunal on this question. Accordingly, both the questions referred are answered in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the department. The parties will bear their respective costs. A copy of this judgement, under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar, will be forwarded to the Tribunal, as required by law.
-
1980 (7) TMI 81 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Penalty, Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... Ltd. v. State of Orissa 1972 83 ITR 26 (SC) . Having regard to the discretion conferred upon the ITO, which has to be reasonably exercised, the provision of penalty under s. 140A(3) cannot be held to be confiscatory and unreasonable. The penalty is in the nature of additional tax for securing compliance that the tax is paid within the time allowed under s. 140A(1). The assessee s income is, no doubt, his property but the assessee can retain that property only subject to the right of the State to recover taxes and a reasonable provision made to secure payment of tax on due date cannot be held to be infringement of the right to hold property. The view taken by us is in line with the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh and Calcutta High Courts. In our opinion, s. 140A(3) is not unconstitutional. For the reasons given above, our answer to the question referred is that the Tribunal was not right in law in cancelling the penalty. There shall be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1980 (7) TMI 80 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Carry Forward And Set Off ... ... ... ... ..... in which the total income of an assessee has to be determined for the purpose of finding out the rate applicable to his income taxable in the year of assessment. It provides for a different situation altogether. We are unable to see how this decision is of any relevance to the facts of this case. In this case, an assessee, which is an association of persons, claims a set-off of carry forward loss, which had already been apportioned amongst its individual members, once again against the income in the subsequent year when actually there is no carried forward loss. When no loss carried forward remains, no set-off can be allowed to the association of persons in the assessment year 1969-70. The loss carried forward had already been apportioned among the individual members of the association of persons. We, accordingly, answer the questions referred to us in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The department will get its costs from the assessee. Advocate s fee Rs. 250.
-
1980 (7) TMI 79 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Annuity Deposit, Refund ... ... ... ... ..... uting the taxable income of the depositor and the annually repaid instalment is also treated as income in the hands of the depositor and as the annuity deposit as well as the refund forms part of the assessment scheme, it is not open to the assessee to convert the repayable annuity deposit into joint family property by throwing it into the common stock of the joint Hindu family. In the two annuity deposit schemes framed under s. 280W of the I.T. Act, 1961, there is no prohibition either express or implied against an assessee converting the repayable annuity deposit instalments into joint family property by throwing it into the common stock of the joint Hindu family. The contention of the revenue that the declaration made by the assessee on August 12, 1970, is opposed to the scheme of taxation cannot be accepted. The question referred to is, therefore, answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The assessee is entitled to costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 one set.
-
1980 (7) TMI 78 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... couched in ambiguous language, it should be construed in an ordinary sense, then, in our opinion, to construe an agreement of loan where there is no provision for getting any interest of the consideration for loan as the profit to be earned by the borrower, then such a profit as computed in the agreement will be the correct construction and will be more in consonance with the ordinary principle of equity and justice. In view of this principle, we are of the opinion that on the construction of the agreement, the assessee, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was not entitled to set off the loss arising from M/s. Cine Films (P.) Ltd. from the assessee s income for the year in question. The Tribunal, in our opinion, must construe the effect of that clause in that light. The question, therefore, is answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. In the facts and Circumstances of the case, each party will pay and bear its own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1980 (7) TMI 77 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... aj and Co. P. Ltd. v. CIT 1979 119 ITR 968 (Bom) can be easily distinguished. In that case the expenditure that was incurred was prior to the commencement of the business of the assessee and had been capitalised since it was an expenditure incurred prior to the commencement of the manufacturing activity of the assessee. The other decision, namely, the decision of the King s Bench in England in Ounsworth (Surveyor of Taxes) v. Vickers Ltd. 1915 6 TC 671 (KB), decided by Rowlatt J., lays down the principles of law but in the light of the test which has been culled out by the Supreme Court in Empire jute Co. s case 1980 124 ITR 1, that judgment is not of much assistance to us in deciding the case before us. Under these circumstances, we answer question No. 1 referred to us in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Question No. 2 has not been pressed and, therefore, we are not required to answer that question. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (7) TMI 76 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Actual Cost, Application For Reference, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... d was not correct. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Challapalli Sugars case 1975 98 ITR 167, it must be held that the expenditure of Rs. 3,67,083 was incurred as part of the actual cost of the plant and machinery in question to the assessee and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to depreciation on this item of expenditure. We, therefore, answer question No. 1 referred to us at the instance of the assessee in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. As we have indicated earlier, in view of the legal position arising from the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. V. Damodaran 1980 121 ITR 572, we decline to answer question No. 2 which has been referred to us at the instance of the Commissioner, who was non-applicant before the Income-tax Tribunal at the stage when the application under S. 256(1) was heard by the Tribunal This reference is disposed of. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1980 (7) TMI 75 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... ests in property acquired with money belonging to the firm are deemed to have been acquired for the firm. Thus, from the reading of the above provision it would be quite clear that all property and rights and interests which the partners may have brought into the common stock as their contribution to the common business are parts of the partnership property. Even if a property contributed by one partner be an immovable property, no document registered or otherwise, is required for transferring the property to the partnership. We are in agreement with the view taken by the Patna High Court. This court also, as already observed above, in CIT v. Amber Corporation 1974 95 ITR 178 approved the above decision of the Patna High Court, though the point was not directly for decision before them. In the circumstances mentioned above, in our view, the question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
-
1980 (7) TMI 74 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Apportionment, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... n of the income to which he would have been entitled for the restricted period during which he was a partner. The view taken by the Tribunal that the correct method was to deduct the tax payable by the firm from the total income of the firm in the first instance and only the balance so ascertained would be the amount that had to be apportioned between the partners entitled to receive the same is correct and is justified by a combined reading of s. 67(1)(a) and the proviso to s. 187(1). The actual amounts allocated as profits assessable in the hands of the partners, though ascertained by the ITO by deducting the proportionate tax payable by the firm in respect of the two periods, has been upheld by the Tribunal as the result would not make any difference if the tax payable had been deducted from the total income in the first instance and thereafter the apportionment had been made. In this view, the answer to the question must be in the affirmative and is answered accordingly.
-
1980 (7) TMI 73 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Commissioner, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... s attention was drawn to the reassessment proceedings and what happened in the course of the reassessment proceedings, he should have taken note of the fact that the item of Rs. 6,43,500 formed part of the decision of the ITO in reassessment proceedings and since that is the only possible conclusion on the facts of this case, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that in view of the provisions of s. 263(2)(a), the Commissioner had no power to pass the order that he did regarding this item of Rs. 6,43,500. . Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that it did and in holding that the Addl. Commissioner was not competent to pass the order in question and the Tribunal rightly cancelled the order passed under s. 263 of the I.T. Act. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1980 (7) TMI 72 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Casual And Non-recurring Receipt, Previous Year ... ... ... ... ..... not be attracted and the receipts could not be taxed in the assessment year 1973-74. Accordingly, we answer question No. 1 in the negative, i.e., the Tribunal was in error in holding that the previous year in respect of jackpot winning was the year ending on 30th June, 1972. It ought to have held that the previous year was the financial year ending on March 31, 1972. In view of the above conclusion, the receipts between September 1, 1971, and February 15, 1972, pertain to the accounting year ending on March 31, 1972, and were assessable in the assessment year 1972-73. By virtue of s. 10(3) read with s. 59 of the Finance Act, 1972, the said income could not be included in the assessment for 1972-73, and it was not liable to be taxed. Accordingly, question No. 2 is answered in the negative, i.e., the receipts could not be brought to tax in the assessment for the assessment year 1973-74, and the restriction in s. 10(3) limiting the exemption to Rs. 1,000 only was not attracted.
-
1980 (7) TMI 71 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... the ITO may entertain the application made after the end of the previous year if he is satisfied that the firm was prevented by sufficient cause from making the application before the end of the previous year. As already pointed out the only purpose for which the circular has been issued is that the assessee should not suffer for the delay in the disposal of the application for the registration of the firm, That being the position, there is no question of the circular having automatically condoned the delay of 9 years in the filing of the application for registration also and subsequently the filing of the declaration. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the ITO was justified in not condoning the delay as the assessee was unable to put forth any reasonable explanation and, consequently, the Tribunal was right in upholding the refusal of the assessee s application for registration. The questions of law referred are answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1980 (7) TMI 70 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... a tribunal exercising judicial functions. It is a settled principle of law that the action of a court or a tribunal should harm neither of the parties arrayed before it. The apprehensions entertained by Mr. Awasthy that since the, period for exercise of jurisdiction under s. 35 of the Act was 4 years, that would keep the proceedings before the IAC in a state of uncertainty if the view taken by us is allowed to prevail, are really groundless, for, the interpretation placed by us on s. 18(3) of the Act not only allows the WTO to rectify the mistake, but also entitles the IAC to determine that the reference made to him, was based on wrong assumptions of fact and in that case he can decline the same and leave the matter to be decided by the WTO himself. For the reasons aforementioned, the questions of law referred to us for our opinion in all the references are answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessees and against the revenue. No costs. B. S. DHILLON J.-I agree.
-
1980 (7) TMI 69 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... d to consider the other relevant material, except the fact that the assessee had accepted a loss of Rs. 39,445 as damages from the insurance company. We have carefully gone through the order of the Tribunal, the relevant portion of which has already been reproduced in the earlier part of the judgment, and we find that the Tribunal did take into consideration all the material produced before it and for good reasons rejected the records of the assessee, on the basis of which the loss was being claimed. The Tribunal rightly placed reliance on the admitted fact that the assessee had agreed and accepted the compensation for the loss to the tune of Rs. 39,445 only from the insurance company. Nothing could be pointed out by Mr. Sibal, learned counsel for the assessee, to show that any error of law was committed by the Tribunal in appreciating the evidence led before it. No other argument has been raised. For the reasons recorded above, we answer the question accordingly with costs.
-
1980 (7) TMI 68 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Legal Representative ... ... ... ... ..... ribunal to sustain the direction of the AAC with regard to fresh assessment. The revenue, therefore, has not at any stage conceded or acquiesced in the position that even on the application of the correct legal test to all the material facts emerging from the record, the assessment is a nullity. True it is that even the revenue has failed to perceive the true implications of law and fact arising in the case and it has, therefore, acquiesced in the order of the AAC with regard to fresh assessment after the determination of legal representatives which, on the consistent stand adopted by it, it could possibly have challenged as unwarranted. To that extent alone, therefore, the revenue must be held bound by the AAC s order and not on the wider question which falls for decision herein. As a result of the foregoing discussion, we decline to answer the question referred to us by the Tribunal. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to the costs of this reference.
-
1980 (7) TMI 67 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... itably take place in a matter such as this, particularly when some of the points involved have not fallen for determination before. There will be no order as to the costs of these petitions. After this judgment was pronounced, learned counsel for both the petitioners and the respondents applied orally for a certificate under arts. 131(1) and 133(1) of the Constitution of India. Article 134, which was inserted by the Constitution (Forty-fourth Amendment) Act, 1978, permits such an oral application to be made immediately after the passing or making, inter alia, of the judgment or final order. In our opinion, these petitions involve a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution and of general importance which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court, and accordingly, we grant to the petitioners as well as to the respondents a certificate both under art. 132(1) and art. 133(1) of the Constitution to enable them to file an appeal to the Supreme Court.
-
1980 (7) TMI 66 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Appeal To AAC, Penalty Proceedings, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... of assessment had not been subjected to appeal before the AAC. In CIT v. Cochin-Malabar Estates Ltd. 1974 97 ITR 466 (Ker), another case relied upon by, the learned standing counsel, the Commissioner in revision set aside the assessment order and directed fresh assessment as the ITO had failed to charge interest under s. 215. This case also proceeds upon the basis that an order under s. 215 is a part of the assessment order., We have already pointed out that we are not concerned in the instant case with s. 215. Further, because of the intervention of the appeal to the AAC, in the instant case, the assessment order cannot be set aside. The Kerala case also, therefore, has no application. For the reasons given above, our answer to the question referred is that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the order of the Addl. Commissioner passed under s. 263 of the Act. was without jurisdiction and hence invalid in law. There shall be no order as to costs of this reference.
....
|
