|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 205 Records
-
1980 (7) TMI 65 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Payments In Cash ... ... ... ... ..... determination is a pure question of law such as construction of a statute or document of title, the decision of the Tribunal is open to reference to the court under section 66(1). (2) When the point for determination is a mixed question of law and fact, while the finding of the Tribunal on the facts found is final, its decision as to the legal effect of these findings is a question of law which can be reviewed by the court. (3) A finding on a question of fact is open to attack under s. 66(1) as erroneous in law when there is no evidence to support it or if it is perverse. (4) When the finding is one of fact, the fact that it is itself an inference from other basic facts will not alter its character as one of fact. In our considered opinion the case in hand falls within the ambit of the second principle laid down by the Supreme Court. We, therefore, allow this petition and direct the Tribunal to state the point of law to us for our opinion. No costs. B. S. DHILLON J.-I agree.
-
1980 (7) TMI 64 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Previous Year, Undisclosed Sources ... ... ... ... ..... ome could be brought to tax only in the assessment year 1959-60, vide Baladin Ram v. CIT 1969 71 ITR 427 (SC). A change has been introduced by s. 68 of the 1961 Act, where, in regard to such income, the previous year adopted by the assessee would be the previous year which, in the instant case, would be the year ending June 30, 1959, and if s. 68 applied, the income could be brought to tax in the assessment year 1960-61. But s. 68 creates a new liability to be assessed for a particular year. Section 68 does not contain any words, indicating its retrospective operation. So far as the assessment year 1960-61 is concerned, the law applicable was what had been provided for in the 1922 Act. Section 68 of the 1961 Act could not be invoked with view to include the income from undisclosed sources which arose in August, 1958, in the assessment for 1960-61. The view taken by the Tribunal is correct. We, accordingly, answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
-
1980 (7) TMI 63 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... d before the appellate authority. The Commissioner revised these two orders and directed the ITO to reframe the assessment in accordance with law. On facts, therefore, the assessee cannot invoke the principle of merger of the order passed by the ITO in the order passed by the AAC. It is not disputed that the Commissioner exercised his revisional jurisdiction within the period of limitation prescribed by law. On merits also the assessee has no case because under somewhat similar circumstances a Division Bench of this court laid down in Income-tax Reference No. 11 of 1972 (Dharam Pal Sal Dev v. CIT 1974 97 ITR 302), that where some of the partners had retired from business and a new partner had been admitted to the partnership firm, the partnership stood merely reconstituted. For the reasons aforementioned, we answer the question in the affirmative, i.e., against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. B. S. DHILLON J.-I agree.
-
1980 (7) TMI 62 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Reduction Or Waiver ... ... ... ... ..... ended to the ITO in completing the assessment after the revised returns were filed. Nothing has been placed before me to demonstrate that the petitioner-assessee did not co-operate with the ITO in completing the assessment. Under s. 273A co-operation in any enquiry relating to the assessment should be held to mean that the assessee did not resort to litigation, obstruction or evasive tactics in concluding the assessment and no more. For the above reasons, the argument advanced by the revenue cannot be accepted and having regard to the decision of the Division Bench referred to earlier, the petitioner must succeed. In the result, rule will issue and the order at annex. E to the petition dated July 2, 1979, is set aside with a direction that the Commissioner should pass fresh orders on the application of the petitioner-assessee made under s. 273A of the Act for the relevant assessment years in the light of the observation made in this order. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (7) TMI 61 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... within an exception lies on an accused person as laid down in s. 105 of the Evidence Act and that the additional evidence might be the conclusions drawn from the absence of entries in the account books of the assessee-company which conclusively establish that the explanation of the assessee was not only false but there had been a deliberate attempt to conceal the income. He further submitted that at the material time, the word deliberate had been omitted from s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The argument raised is that, in the instant case, the facts lay within the special knowledge of the assessee-company which it failed to establish and in view of s. 105 of the Evidence Act a statutory presumption can be drawn against it. The submissions made by Mr. Awasthy do indicate that a point of law arises in the case. We, therefore, allow these petitions and direct the Tribunal to refer to us for our opinion the aforementioned question of law in the two cases. No costs. DHILLON J.-I agree.
-
1980 (7) TMI 60 - KERALA HIGH COURT
HUF, Res Judicata, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... spite the distinction between tax and interest emphasised by counsel for the petitioner. The contention is, therefore, futile. We hold that the petitioner is not liable for the income-tax, surcharge, corporation tax and interest for the assessment years 1959-60 and 1960-61, mentioned in Ex. P-7. We quash Exs. P-7, P-8 and P-10 and P-14 to P-17, in so far as they make the petitioner liable for these amounts. The original petition is allowed to the above extent and dismissed in other respects. In the circumstances we direct the parties to bear their costs. July 10, 1980 On the pronouncement of the judgment, counsel for the petitioner and standing counsel for the I.T. Dept. orally prayed under art. 134A for certificate under art. 133(1) of the Constitution to prefer appeals in the Supreme Court. We are not satisfied that the case involves any substantial question of law of general importance which, in our opinion, needs to be decided by the Supreme Court. We decline the prayers.
-
1980 (7) TMI 59 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Commissioner, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... t for opinion. After hearing the learned counsel, we are of the opinion that no fault can be found with the order passed by the learned Tribunal. It is not disputed that the application in Form No. II filed by the assessee was pending before the ITO. The ITO did not pass any order on this application. Consequently, the order of the Addl. Commissioner directing the ITO to assess the assessee as an unregistered firm could not be sustained in law as the ITO was bound in law to dispose of the prayer made by the assessee. In case the ITO allowed the prayer, the assessee had to be treated as registered firm and in case the application made by it was declined, the firm had to be assessed as an unregistered one. In this view of the matter, no fault can be found with the order of the learned Tribunal and, consequently, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. We order accordingly. There is no order as to costs.
-
1980 (7) TMI 58 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... had maintained the percentage of the concealed income. The Appellate Tribunal, though it reduced the quantum of the escaped income, yet had maintained the same amount of penalty with increased percentage on the escaped income. This in our opinion, the Tribunal was not justified in doing on the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, in that view of the matter, we would answer question No. 1 in the affirmative. So far as question No. 2 is concerned, we would say that the Tribunal was right in upholding the order of imposition of penalty but the Tribunal was not right in upholding the order of penalty in its entirety and the quantum that was imposed. We will direct the Tribunal in the light of the observations made in this judgment to recompute the amount of penalty imposable on the assessee. The question No. 2 is answered in the manner accordingly. In the facts and circumstances of the case, each party will pay and bear its own costs. SUDHINDRA M0HAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1980 (7) TMI 57 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... with definiteness that by adopting such a method the profits and gains cannot properly be deduced therefrom. We have also to keep in mind that while s. 145 enables the ITO not to accept the method of accounting of the assessee if he was of the opinion that the method employed is such that the income cannot properly be deduced therefrom, there is no power in the ITO to impose his own method. As already stated, the assessee was adopting the practice of writing off the entire cost of distribution rights in the year of acquisition, and that was accepted by the department in the previous years. As rightly pointed out by the Tribunal, it has not been established that the method of accounting regularly followed by the assessee in the past is Such that the income, profits and gains cannot properly be deduced therefrom. We, accordingly, answer all the questions in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to its costs, counsel s fee Rs. 500, one set.
-
1980 (7) TMI 56 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Industrial Company ... ... ... ... ..... ainly engaged in the business of generation or distribution of electricity or any other form of power or in the construction of ships or in the manufacture or processing of goods or in mining... The only words which apply to the present case are the manufacture or processing of goods . Books in the manufactured state which are sold to customers are goods, and their manufacture or processing is, as in the case of other goods, the conversion of paper and the manuscript written by an author into a book. This certainly involves either manufacture or processing, and there is no doubt that the assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing or processing books. Therefore, the assessee is an industrial company. We would, therefore, answer the question as framed in the negative and in favour of the assessee and against the department. As the matter is covered by authority and has also been accepted by the department in other cases, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1980 (7) TMI 55 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... assessee s attention was drawn to the Explanation is a question of fact. It was, therefore, for the assessee to have contended before the Tribunal that material prejudice has been caused to it by the failure on the part of the IAC to draw its attention to the Explanation and to afford to it a reasonable opportunity of displacing the presumption arising under the Explanation. The assessee has not raised any such contention before the Tribunal. Under such circumstances, in our opinion, the second contention advanced on behalf of the assessee also cannot be accepted. As a result of the foregoing discussion, we come to the conclusion that the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the levy of penalty upon the assessee under the provisions of s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The question referred for our opinion is, therefore, answered in the affirmative, that is to say, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The assessee shall pay the costs of this reference to the revenue.
-
1980 (7) TMI 54 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... stion of fact and, as such, no question is referable to the court. But the learned advocate for the revenue drew our attention to the observations of the Supreme Court, which we have noted, where the Supreme Court proceeded to answer the question as a question, of law. There, of course, this contention was not raised that this was not a question of law. Furthermore, the Supreme Court had to lay down the principle as to what principle should be followed in considering this kind of expression. Here, there is no dispute on that principle. Therefore, had it been necessary for us to decide this question, we would have said, as we have seen, that this is a question of fact. In the view we have taken, it is not necessary for us to rest our decision on this. In that view of the matter, we answer the second question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. 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 53 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ontract but when the manufacturing licence was revoked the loss actually occurred. In our opinion, therefore, the disputed claim being a trading loss can be allowed in the year in which it occurred. Thus, if it is treated as a business expenditure it could be claimed in the year in which it was incurred and if it was a trading loss it could be claimed in the year in which it was actually caused. On the facts found by the Appellate Tribunal, the money was advanced to Sri Mohan Lal Vyas and he failed to perform his part of the contract in the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1963-64 and, therefore, it was a loss which was allowable in that year and simply because the bad debt was written off in the books on 30th April, 1963, it would not become a loss allowable in the year under consideration. We, therefore, answer the question in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1980 (7) TMI 52 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... behind the aggregation of interest of lineal descendants with the coparcenary interest of the deceased for rate purposes is to bring about some parity in the taxation of the Mitakshara joint family and the Dayabhaga joint family. It is well settled that in matters of taxation the Legislature has a wide discretion of selecting properties, persons and rates and a provision in a taxing Act cannot be lightly held to be invalid on the ground of violation of art. 14 of the Constitution. With great respect, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the Madras High Court in V. Devaki Ammal v. Asst. CED 1973 91 ITR 24. We would also like to point out that in an earlier case of the Madras High Court, Ramanathan Chettiar v. Asst. CED 1970 76 ITR 402, S. 34(1)(c) was held to be valid. For the reasons given above, our answer to the question referred is in the negative, in favour of the department and against the accountable person. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1980 (7) TMI 51 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Deduction, Income From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... of the E. D. Act, which was under consideration before the Bombay High Court in H. H. Maharani Vijaykuverba Saheb s case 1975 100 ITR 67, there was a charge on the estate of the assessee concerned and, on those facts, it was possible to hold as the Bombay High Court did in that particular case. Under these circumstances, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs of this reference to the Commissioner. The learned Advocate-General on behalf of the assessee applied orally for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under s. 261 of the I.T. Act, 1961., He informs us that the appeals against the decisions of this court in Smt. Padmavati Jaikrishna s case 1975 101 ITR 153 and in Virmati s case are pending before the Supreme Court. In view of this fact, we grant certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and certify that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court.
-
1980 (7) TMI 50 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... were possible and practicable in a business of this kind, and the department did not point out any manipulation of accounts or other indication of concealment of income. It was for the Tribunal to accept the explanation given by the assessee to be correct or not. In the facts and circumstances of the case, if the explanation submitted by the assessee has been accepted by the Tribunal, it is a question of fact which lies within the discretion of the Tribunal and no question of law arises out of such discretion exercised by the Tribunal. It cannot be said that the opinion of the Tribunal in this regard was based on no evidence, or was against some statutory provisions of law. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the order of the Tribunal dated April 27, 1972, does not suffer from any defect. The question referred to above is thus answered in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs as nobody has appeared from the side of the respondents before us.
-
1980 (7) TMI 49 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Tax Credit Certificates ... ... ... ... ..... entitled only to a tax credit certificate for an amount calculated at 25 per cent. of the amount of duty payable and the amount of duty exempt in respect of sales made to newspapers would not be taken into account in calculating the amount of tax credit certificate. But it would then not be possible to deny tax credit certificate on the ground of shortfall shown in the Central authority s order in respect of newsprint sold to persons other than newspapers, for, this would not be treated as a separate category and would have to be dealt with along with category (1), i.e., newsprint sold to newspapers. As the case has not been examined from this angle, it will have to be remanded to the director. The petition is partly allowed. The impugned order of the director is quashed and he is, directed to rehear and decide the appeal in accordance with law in the light of the observations made above. There will be no order as to costs. The security amount be refunded to the petitioner.
-
1980 (7) TMI 48 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Partnership ... ... ... ... ..... the Contract Act or the Partnership Act. The observations of the Privy Council that a partnership can be formed with a junior member by the karta qua his separate property is by way of illustration of a particular eventuality when the separate property constitutes consideration for the induction of a junior member into the partnership. It cannot be read as being exhaustive of cases where consideration may take other forms. Now, as labour and skill would also be consideration as contemplated by the Contract Act, a valid partnership had come into existence, which ought to have been registered. We find ourselves in agreement with the view expressed by the Mysore High Court in I. P. Munavalli s case 1969 74 ITR 529. The decision of the Tribunal is right. We accordingly answer the question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to its costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200. The counsel s fee is assessed at the same figure.
-
1980 (7) TMI 47 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose, Not Involving The Carrying On Of Any Activity For Profit ... ... ... ... ..... the questions referred, therefore, are Question No. 1 referred at the instance of the department. On the facts of the instant case the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in holding that the assessee held property under trust within the meaning of s.11(1)(b) of the Act and in allowing exemption in respect of the amounts actually spent on charities. The question is thus answered in the negative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. Questions Nos. 1 and 2 referred at the instance of the assessee. On the facts of the case the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the holding of an agricultural and industrial exhibition and cattle fair involves an activity for profit within the meaning of s. 2(15) of the Act and further that the assessee is not entitled to exemption under s. 11(1)(a). Both the questions are answered in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. The department is entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1980 (7) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Casual And Non-recurring Receipt ... ... ... ... ..... a trade. You cannot point to any detail that it lacks. But still it is not a trade nor an adventure in the nature of trade. And how does it help to ask the question If it is not a trade, what is it ? It is burglary, and that is all there is to say about it. So here it is dividend-stripping, and nothing else. Adopting the phraseology of Lord Denning, we may ask the question Is sale of well-water by a housewife from the copious supply in her backdoor well an adventure in the nature of trade ? And answer the question, in the same manner, by saying that it is only a sale of well-water, and that is all there is to say about it. We are satisfied that the Tribunal came to a correct conclusion when it held that the sum of Rs. 37,770 received by the assessee by sale of water from her well is exempt from income-tax under s. 10(3) of the Act. The question of law referred to us is, accordingly, answered in favour of the assessee. The assessee will have her costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
....
|
