Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1980 1980 (7) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 205 of 205 Records
-
1980 (7) TMI 5
... ... ... ... ..... said that there was no property worth mentioning owned by the assessee s family at the time he made his declaration. The learned standing counsel rightly desisted from advancing any argument of this kind. If we may change the metaphor, it is not necessary that a joint family hotchpot should already hold something to enable a coparcener to throw his separate property into it even an empty hotchpot can receive and hold what is thrown into it by the coparcener. This position is settled beyond doubt by such decisions as Subramania Iyer v. CIT 1955 28 ITR 352 (Mad) and CIT v. Pushpa Devi 1971 82 ITR 7 (Delhi). In the result, we agree with the decision of the Tribunal upholding the validity and the legal consequences of the assessee s act of impressing a moiety of his shares in the two partnerships mentioned in the question of law. We accordingly answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1980 (7) TMI 4
Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ent case, however, we cannot hold that the expenditure incurred by the assessee can at all be regarded as an outgoing, adding to the element of cost nor can it be regarded as necessary for the carrying on or carrying out of the assessee s business. Given the Tribunal s finding to the effect that the expenses were incurred out of business needs and business exigencies and considering that the very nature of the expenditure partakes of the character of business diplomacy, we hold that the Tribunal was in error in holding in this case that the expenditure incurred by the assessee-firm in standing food and drinks to members of the ship crew and other constituents and customers is not entertainment expenditure within the meaning of 37(2A) of the I.T. Act, 1961. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to us in the negative and against the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax will have his costs from the assessee. Counsel fee is fixed at Rs. 500 (rupees five hundred only).
-
1980 (7) TMI 3
Burden Of Proof, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ) of this sub-section. It has been held in the case of CIT v. Behera 1976 103 ITR 479 (Orissa), that the onus in such circumstances vests on the assessee with effect from April 1, 1964, when the above-quoted Explanation was added, to prove that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or gross or wilful neglect of the assessee, where the total income returned is less than 80 per cent. of the total income assessed. In the case of CIT v. Parmanand Advani 1979 119 ITR 464 (Pat.), our own High Court also held the same view. After the addition of the Explanation, above-quoted, with effect from April 1, 1964, the position in this respect has changed and the decision in the cases of Anwar Ali 1970 76 ITR 696 (SC) and Hindustan Steel Ltd. 1972 83 ITR 26 (SC), have no application. Therefore, the question is answered in favour of the Department and against the assessee. As there is no appearance on behalf of the assessee, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (7) TMI 2
... ... ... ... ..... be included in the personal income of Shri Brij Mohan and not in the assessable income of the joint family. It must also be said here that this case should not be treated as a precedent for allowing a bifurcation of the sum being paid as a salary to a karta into two portions. It so happens that the jump from Rs. 400 to Rs. 1,400 in the one case and from Rs. 200 to Rs. 1,200 in the case of the other brother was so steep that it cannot be justified as being on account of rendering of personal services and, therefore, this case is in a sense exceptional, as part of the remuneration has been treated as being on account of the services rendered and the balance is treated as a return on the capital invested. In view of the findings of the Tribunal, the answer has to be given against the assessee. The answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative, in favour of the Commissioner of Income-tax and against the assessee. The Department will get costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1980 (7) TMI 1
Accrual, Business Connection, Collaboration Agreement, Income, Non-resident ... ... ... ... ..... cording to him, is a question of construction of a particular agreement between the parties and a true construction of the said agreement will govern the future course of the Revenue in relation to such matters. According to Mr. Sen Gupta, the question of construction of an agreement is a question of law. We are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Sen Gupta that in the facts and circumstances any substantial question of law of general importance which requires determination by the Supreme Court arises. Undoubtedly, the court has to construe an agreement. As recorded in the judgment, this court has construed the said agreement and has also relied on a decision of the Supreme Court. As we are not satisfied that any substantial question of law of general importance which requires to be determined by the Supreme Court arises in the present case, we are unable to grant the certificate. The said oral application of Mr. Sen Gupta is, therefore, dismissed. A. N. SEN C.J.-I agree.
....
|
|