|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 172 of 172 Records
-
1980 (8) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Relief Under 1918 Act, Set Off Of Loss, Succession ... ... ... ... ..... ecision of the Privy Council in the case of CIT v. Khemchand Ramdas 1938 6 ITR 414, we have to find out whether the expression assessed had been used in the proviso to s. 25(4) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, in such wide or loose sense of provisional calculation or the calculation was only to find out whether it was dutiable or not, which cannot be called an assessment under the Super Profits Tax Act, which disentitles the assessee to the relief under the proviso to sub-s. (4) of s. 25 of the Act. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal came to the correct conclusion on the construction of the section. In the premises, the third question, in our opinion, must also be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the premises, all the three questions are answered in favour of the assessee and in the affirmative. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1980 (8) TMI 11 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... , who was operating the bank accounts and attending to the sales tax and income-tax matters and, due to his death, the partners of the firm were in state of shock and not in a proper frame of mind to attend to the affairs of the firm. The acceptance by the Tribunal of the plea put forth by the assessee-firm is essentially a finding of fact. Nothing could be pointed out by Mr. D. N. Awasthy, the learned counsel for the Revenue, that any irrelevant consideration prevailed with the Tribunal or any relevant consideration was ignored. The Tribunal had the discretion to condone the delay in filing the application for registration and in our considered opinion, the discretion exercised by it in condoning the delay cannot be held to be arbitrary. For the reasons recorded above, the aforesaid question of law, referred by the Tribunal for the opinion of this court, is answered in the affirmative in favour of the assessee-firm and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (8) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ficer. We are, therefore, to hold that the inclusion of the income of Hindusthan Trading Corporation in the hands of the assessee is in order. Thus, in view of the findings of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that there should not be any doubt that the wife of the assessee was mere benamidar of her husband. Any of the findings of the Tribunal, as stated earlier were not even assailed by the assessee. In this view of the matter we hold that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in its finding in favour of the Department. We would prefer to answer the question, which was though framed otherwise, in the following manner. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in upholding the order of imposition of penalty under s. 271(1)(c) read with s. 274(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on the assessee and we direct the computation of penalty in the manner it was done by the Tribunal. Each party to pay and bear its own costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
-
1980 (8) TMI 9 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the tax which itself runs to several lakhs of rupees for the different years, at this stage and also requested us to grant an unconditional order of stay and, if not, to direct the Department to accept the security of immovable properties for the tax involved. Having given our careful consideration to the arguments as well as to the entire circumstances, we are of the opinion that the proper order to pass in the present case will be to call upon the petitioner herein to pay one-half of the tax, namely, one-half of Rs. 5,64,056 payable for the assessment year 1968-69, as per the orders of assessment within a period of three months from this date and to give an opportunity to the petitioner to give a bank guarantee for the other half of the amount within the same period. Subject to the above conditions being fulfilled, there will be an order of stay for collection of the tax of Rs. 5,64,056 relating to the assessment year 1968-69 during the pendency of the tax reference case.
-
1980 (8) TMI 8 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Income ... ... ... ... ..... ceived by the assessee. The apparent state of things was that the amount was a loan. The burden of showing that the apparent state of affairs was not the real one was very heavy on the Department and apart from circumstances which by themselves can be said to be neutral, there was no other material to doubt the nature of the transaction and to hold that it was income. Every loan granted without security or in regard to which no repayment has been made cannot automatically be termed as a payment either towards commission or as a receipt from business. Without tangible material to suspect that the receipt was by way of commission and without recording such a finding, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the amount was assessable as income is wholly untenable. The conclusion to treat the amount as income has been reached without any tangible material at all on record and is, therefore, untenable. The question is accordingly answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee.
-
1980 (8) TMI 7 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Failure To Disclose Fully And Truly, Reassessment, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... . However, we find that questions Nos. (i) and (ii) can be consolidated in the following form Whether, in view of the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law to hold that the assessee had not fully and truly disclosed the material facts which were necessary for his assessment and further whether in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was legally justified in invoking the provisions of section 34(1)(a) and the proceedings started under section 34 after the expiry of four years were not barred by time ? We accordingly allow this petition and direct the Tribunal to refer the three questions of law, i.e., question No. (i) as reframed and questions Nos. (iii) and (iv) as prayed by the assessee, to this court for its opinion within a period of three months. This reference along with Income-tax Ref. No. 1 of 1976 (Dr . Surmukh Singh Uppal v. CIT) may then be put up for hearing on or before December 8, 1980. No costs.
-
1980 (8) TMI 6 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Export Market Development Allowance, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... duction under s. 35B cannot be denied on the off-chance that the assessee-firm might get further relief by fulfilling the conditions of S. 80-O. The Tribunal, in our opinion, was correct in holding that the weighted deduction was not dependent on the assessee not being eligible to relief under s. 80-O. The two provisions grant independent reliefs. The one does not add anything to or take away anything from the other. The one relates to a particular method of computation of expenditure under particular head of income the other relates to exemption from tax of particular class of income from the total taxable income. There is nothing to show that the reliefs are alternative, as the choice, either of the Department or of the assessee. We are, therefore, in agreement with the conclusion reached by the Tribunal. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the Department. The assessees would be entitled to their costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1980 (8) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Insurance Company, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... Schedule 11, r. 2 of the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964. The question of law is in the following terms Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the provision for outstanding claims for the assessment years 1964-65, 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 was not a fund, surplus or reserve under rule 2(ii) of the Second Schedule to the Companies (Profits) Surtax Act, 1964 ? The answer to this question is also to be found in the decision of the Full Bench in Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. CIT 1979 117 ITR 534, in which it was held that the provision for outstanding claims cannot be regarded as a fund, surplus or reserve within the meaning of r. 2(ii) of the Second Schedule to the same Act. Following the Full Bench decision, we must answer this question also against the assessee. In the result, the reference is answered accordingly. The Department will have its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1980 (8) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... gains had arisen from the sale of land situated within city limits. For, in that case, there was clear evidence on record to show that the land was being utilised to grow plantation and other vegetables for a long number of years. This evidence, however, was not given due importance by the, Tribunal when it held, by a majority, that the land was not agricultural land. When the matter came before this court, it was pointed out that the Tribunal should not have determined the character of the land by overlooking the actual tillings and cultivation which had been carried on therein over a period of time recently. In the present case, the factual position was wholly different as we have earlier pointed out. There is no similarity between the two cases on the aspect of actual user of the land for agricultural purposes. For all the above reasons, we answer the question of law referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (8) TMI 3 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ed the order in the appeal against the assessment that the impugned amount has been proved to be the income of the assessee. On the other hand, it has been held to be income because the assessee had not been able to prove that the amount really represented a loan. It is, therefore, clear that the conclusion of the Tribunal that a case for imposition of penalty had not been made out and that, therefore, the penalty imposed was to be cancelled was correct and justified in the circumstances of the case. As stated earlier, in view of the conclusion reached by this court in regard to the assessment, there would exist no basis at all for the imposition of penalty. Accordingly, the question referred in 1. T. R. C. No. 113(A) of 1980 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In view of the above answer, the question referred in I. T. R. C. No. 111 of 1975 becomes academic and it is unnecessary to answer the same. We decline to record any answer in respect thereof.
-
1980 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
Indian exporter crediting commission on sales to non-resident sales agents, in his account - non-resident assessees did not carry on any business operations in the taxable territories - commission amounts which were earned by the non-resident assessees for services rendered outside India cannot, therefore, be deemed to be incomes which have either accrued or arisen in India
-
1980 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Sugar manufacturer - Contribution towards part of cost of construction of roads in area around factory - wholly and exclusively laid out for business - Allowable as deduction
....
|
