|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 208 of 208 Records
-
1980 (9) TMI 8
... ...
... ... ..... fered by the assessee for deprivation of profitable use of the compensation money. In our view, a hypothetical loss of interest on the amount of compensation might be a good measure for a determination of the compensation under s. 48A but the same could not affect the nature or character of the receipt of such compensation in the hands of the assessee. Thus the amount of compensation under s. 48A being neither loss of profit nor loss of interest the receipt thereof in the hands of the assessee does not appear to have the character of a revenue receipt. Such an amount appears to be of the nature of a casual receipt of a non-recurring character arising out of particular statutory provision. Even otherwise, such a receipt is more in the nature of a capital receipt and does not have the characteristic of income. For the above reasons the question referred is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1980 (9) TMI 7
Best Judgment Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... tory notices, or omitted to comply with the notices issued by the ITO, must be given no quarter, and the officer can serve him right by refusing to give him a hearing, then, with respect, we cannot accede to that proposition. All things considered, the particular disposal of the appeal by the Appellate Tribunal in this case under reference does not seem to us to be proper. We have come to that conclusion even without entering into discussion as to whether the assessee was or was not entitled to a hearing before the ITO made the estimate. We must accordingly, answer the question in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The effect of this answer is to obliterate the order of the Tribunal and to direct the Tribunal to rehear the appeal and dispose of it on the basis of materials and on the basis of a finding on the rival contentions urged by the parties and on the lines suggested by us in the foregoing paragraphs. The assessee will have their costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1980 (9) TMI 6
Deduction Of Cost Of Acquisition ... ... ... ... ..... olding that the market value of the assets on the date on which the property was thrown into the common hotchpot of the Hindu undivided family by the individual coparcener is to be taken as the cost of acquisition ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was right in deleting the capital gains brought to tax in the assessment year 1971-72 ? Our answer to the first question is against the assessee. We hold that the cost of acquisition of the asset in this case must be taken to be the written down value of the asset to Krishna Rao from whom the assessee acquired it. The answer to the second question is consequential. The answer is that the assessment of capital gains made by the ITO on the basis that the cost of acquisition was Rs. 25,639 was correct. The decision to the contrary, rendered by the Tribunal, is wrong. In the circumstances, the reference is answered accordingly. The Department will have its costs. Counsel fee Rs. 500.
-
1980 (9) TMI 5
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... the submission of Shri Bhagirath Dass, the learned counsel for the assessee, that the question does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal. As regards question No. 1, it cannot be disputed that the admission of the additional material which was disallowed by the Tribunal would certainly change the complex of the findings arrived at by the Tribunal, because if the said material is allowed to be placed on the record after giving an opportunity to the assessee to rebut the same, the documentary evidence, which should have been looked into and relied upon, had been ignored. In that situation, questions Nos. 1 and 2, referred to in the earlier part of the order, would certainly be question of law and are not questions of fact. For the reasons recorded above, we allow this case and direct the Tribunal to render the two questions, referred to in the earlier part of the judgment, to this court, for its opinion. We order accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1980 (9) TMI 4
... ...
... ... ..... held. Now, penalty is imposed on account of the commission of a wrongful act, and it is well-settled that it is the law in force on the date on which the wrongful act is committed which determines the penalty, In the instant case, the wrongful act took place on October 30, 1969, when the return in response to the notice under s. 148 of the Act was filed by the assessee. The Tribunal, therefore, erred in holding that the law applicable for the imposition of penalty in the instant case would be that contained in s. 271(1)(c) prior to its amendment from April 1, 1968. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to us is that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the default was attributable to the return filed in the course of the original assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1964-65 and that the amended provisions of s 271(1)(c) of the Act were not attracted. Reference answered accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1980 (9) TMI 3
Whether there was any material evidence to justify the finding that a sum of ₹ 1,07,350 was remitted by the assessee from Madras to Bombay and that it represented the undisclosed income of the assessee - set aside the judgment of the High Court and answer the question referred by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee and against the revenue
-
1980 (9) TMI 2
Whether the interest of the assessee in the trust fund amounted to an annuity exempt under section 2(e)(iv) - judgment of the High Court is set aside and the question referred to the High Court under s. 27(1) of the Act is answered in the negative and against the assessee because power in trustees to reinvest upon redemption Right is not " annuity " and is taxable
-
1980 (9) TMI 1
Concealment of income - Failure to disclose share of spouse and minor children in firm - hold that the assessee could not be said to have concealed her income by not disclosing in the return filed by her the amounts representing the shares of her husband and minor daughter in the two partnership firms - revenue authorities are not justified in levying penalty on the assessee
....
|
