|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 208 Records
-
1980 (9) TMI 201
Power of inspectors to carry investigation into affairs of related companies ... ... ... ... ..... vilege was claimed under section 123. In the case, it was also held that the affidavit filed in support of the claim of privilege was defective and the High Court was given a direction that it could direct a further affidavit to be filed on behalf of the State. It was further laid down that if the court in respect of the affidavit wishes to inspect the document, the court may do so. Although, strictly speaking, section 123 of the Evidence Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case, yet the principle laid down in respect of public interest would be applicable. Applying the above principles, I am satisfied that public interest would be affected by the disclosure of the contents of the document. For the reasons indicated above, I am satisfied that the claim for privilege under section 124 of the Evidence Act is well founded and must be upheld. Accordingly, the objection is sustained and the prayer for the summoning and production of the inspector s report is refused.
-
1980 (9) TMI 200
Penalty for wrongful with holding of property, Principles for interpretation of statutes ... ... ... ... ..... t grounds to proceed against the accused and, further, the interpretation about the relevant provisions of the Act being negatived, it follows that a prima facie case has been properly and adequately made out by the respondent-complainant and as such, the trial must reach its logical destination. In the result, the rule is discharged. As the matter is pending in the trial court for quite some time, it would be in the fitness of things and in the interest of justice, as the delay should not defeat the cause of justice, that the learned trial Magistrate shall expedite the hearing in this matter. At this juncture, Shri Adi R.P. Gandhi, the learned counsel on instructions from the clients, makes an oral motion with a request for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and for grant of requisite certificate of fitness. In my opinion, the facts are manifestly glaring and the law is well settled. Absolutely, no ground is made out in support of this request. The oral motion is rejected.
-
1980 (9) TMI 179
Winding up – Suits stayed on winding-up order ... ... ... ... ..... in Star Trading Corporation s case 1971 41 Comp. Cas. 1023 (Guj.), when a company is ordered to be wound up, the arbitration agreement is not superseded and the same continues to bind the company subsequent to the order of winding up as it did before. In this situation, as earlier observed, the Allahabad High Court judgment is of no help and assistance to the learned counsel for the petitioner. As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that a clause existing in an agreement for making a reference of a dispute to arbitration, continues to bind a company subsequent to the order of winding up as it did before, that such a clause does not impinge upon or take away the jurisdiction of the court and that it would be for the court to decide whether to try the dispute which has been brought before it or to stay the action where the other party applies in time and otherwise complies with the conditions of section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. B. S. Dhillon, J. mdash I agree.
-
1980 (9) TMI 170
... ...
... ... ..... depends upon the circumstances and the materials brought on record and there is no general rule or universal test which will apply to all cases and in all circumstances. The Department cannot insist on demonstrative proof of the fact which must satisfy the test of infallibility. All that is required is an honest judgment on the part of the assessee at the time when he makes the write off. A debt cannot be written off as bad and irrecoverable if on the material available it could be shown that there was a possibility of recovering the same. I have considered the totality of the circumstances and the material fact is that there is no ray of recovery of that amount from the petitioner. The assessee s claims must be allowed. I hold that the assessee s case is squarely covered by the decision of the Bombay High Court and, therefore, I direct that the assessee s claim for the bad debt of Rs. 6,809 for this year should be allowed. 7. In the result, the assessee s appeal is allowed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 167
... ...
... ... ..... AC erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 38,098. 6. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 11th Sept., 1980 when none appeared for the assessee respondent and so the ld. Deptl. Rep. was heard. 7. The ld. Deptl. Rep. fairly conceded before us that the entire amount of Rs. 38,098 was paid towards interest to the HUFs who were the creditors of the assessee firm. He also accepted the position that the kartas were the partners in the firm in their individual status. On these facts we have no doubts that the AAC has taken a correct legal position. The reference to the Board s Circular number appears to be not correct. It is Circular letter E.No. 205/1/67-ITA-II dt. 11th Aug., 1976. The finding of the AAC is also supported by the decision of this Tribunal in ITA No. 437 (Pat) of 1979. Respectfully following order in ITA No. 437 (Pat) of 1979 we hold that the AAC has taken a reasonable view in the matter. We, therefore, uphold the order of AAC. 8. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 166
... ...
... ... ..... has been filed that registration granted to a firm for any assessment year shall have effect for the subsequent year only if the declaration furnished along with its return of income under proviso (ii) to s. 184(7) of the said Act is signed by all the partners. However, we find that in the aforesaid ruling reported in 106 ITR 154 the full facts have been discussed and then their Lordships have come to a finding that the partners of the firm as constituted at the time of making the declaration can sign Form No. 12 and it can be valid. In the present case the firm was dissolved on 31st March, 1975 and Form No. 12 was filed on 28th July, 1975 when the firm of 13 partners had come into existence. We hold in view of the ruling reported in 106 ITR 164 that the CIT (A) has taken a reasonable view in the matter. Even if two views are possible, the one in favour of the assessee has to be taken. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT (A). 6. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 165
... ...
... ... ..... ash of Rs. 19,188 for supply of cloth during the whole year and the assessee supplied cloth worth Rs. 11,190.16 and on the balance amount he paid interest of Rs.801 and thus the amount of Rs. 8,798.84 was carried over to the next year. Shri Sundaram Narnoli has accepted in his statement that he was doing cloth business on retail basis. We have already held that Babulal is the son of Shri Sundaram and both are at inimical terms with the assessee HUF and so it was not possible for the assessee to produce Babulal for his examination by the AAC. Under such circumstances the account books of the assessee have to be believed when Shri Sundaram has denied to have maintained any account books. We, therefore, hold that this amount of Rs. 8,800 which was taken in round figures is also satisfactorily explained. We, therefore, delete this addition of Rs. 8,800 as well. 16. In the result, the entire addition of Rs. 86,279 from other sources is deleted. Hence the appeal is allowed in full.
-
1980 (9) TMI 164
... ...
... ... ..... and Others, Patna vs. The competent Authority, Acquisition, Bihar, Patna IT (Acquisition) Appeal No. 10 (Pat) of 1974-75 Smt. Malti Sha, Patna vs. The Competent Authority, Acquisition, Bihar, Patna IT (Acquisition) Appeal No. 11 (Pat) of 1974-75. Sumitra Kumari, Patna vs. The Competent Authority, Acquisition, Bihar, Patna ANNEXURE-B Plot No. Area in Square feet Consideration Name of purchaser A 3,368 Rs. 45,000 Kusheshwar Jha . . . Binod Kumar Mishra B 754 Rs. 8,000 Hemalatha Devi Sinha C 754 Rs. 8,000 Narendra Kumar Sinha D 806 Rs. 4,000 Sharda Devi Sinha E 2,302 Rs. 20,000 Lalita Todi F 2,306 Rs. 20,000 S.J. Mehta G 984 Rs. 5,000 Malti Sah H 984 Rs. 5,000 Sumitra Kumari I 2,026 Rs. 15,000 Joginder Karur J 2,248 Rs. 15,000 Bahadur Singh K 2,784 Rs. 12,500 Bhagwant Karur L 3,034 Rs. 12,500 Harbajan Singh Bungalow and Outhouses Rs. 15,000 All the purchasers jointly. . . Rs. 1,85,000 . No action has been taken under Chapter XXA of the Act for acquisition of immovable property.
-
1980 (9) TMI 163
... ...
... ... ..... ere invested in the construction of the house and in the purchase of shares. Under such circumstances the order of the AAC as well as the assessment orders of the WTO for both the asst. yrs. are set aside on this limited issue and the WTO is directed to examine the books of account of the assessee which have to be produced by the assessee. He will find out as to actually any amount was spent in the construction of the house and if so to what extent out of the loans taken. He will find out as to what expenditure was incurred for the purpose of acquiring shares and what amount was spent out of the loans for this purpose. The WTO will re ndash decide this issue after giving the assessee opportunity to produce necessary materials and also after giving opportunity to the assessee of being heard. 7. As we have set aside the order of the AAC and the assessment orders of the WTO on the limited issue mentioned above, both the appeals will be treated as allowed for statistical purpose.
-
1980 (9) TMI 157
... ...
... ... ..... elled the journey to those places shows that he was not in a holiday or sightseeing mood. There is nothing to show that he was holidaying in London or in any other stop over. The visit to London company was purely for business purposes and the expenditure from India to London and back is, therefore, an admissible expenditure. There is also nothing to show that it is capital. So no asset or benefit of enduring nature was put into existence. The short visit to London factory will only get the gentleman an idea as to how best to run or organize such a business in lines similar to the London company. Whether he actually puts that information gathered, to use, to improve his business is not at all material. So the entire expenditure on foreign trip has to be allowed as a deduction. The assessee has not appealed against the disallowance of Rs. 10,000 and it restricts its appeal only to the enhancement. 4. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. The enhancement made by the AAC is deleted.
-
1980 (9) TMI 155
... ...
... ... ..... not to any assignment. So there is no question of transfer of any assessee s share to the continuing partners. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case we hold that the dissolution of firm on 31st Jan., 1975 is established in the facts and in law. The continuing partners namely 5 to 19 have reconstituted the firm w.e.f. 12th Jan., 1975 by taking in three non-additional partners. This factor would effectively rule out any inference of an assignment in favour of the continuing partners by the retiring original partners. The receipt of money by each one of the assessee is not in consideration for transfer of a capital assets, but it was by way of distribution of the assets of the firm. 10. The ld. CIT (A) has elaborately gone into the matter and since we are agreeing with this view, it is unnecessary to go into the matter in detail further. We agree with the reasonings of the CIT (A) and confirm his findings. 11. In the result, both the Deptl. Rep. appeals are dismissed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 153
... ...
... ... ..... the assessment for the year ended 31st March, 1974. In the annexure to the Reference Application, it has been stated that the state of affairs at the time of assessment is the relevant consideration and that the Tribunal had committed an error of law in taking a different view. We, however, find that the question whether a particular liability is subsisting or not on the last day of the accounting year has to be considered in the light of knowledge obtaining on that day. Since this position is fairly established. We feel that any reference of this question will be highly academic. Apart from the same, the authorities is also subject matter of an appeal before the Supreme Court. The computation of income for income-tax purposes cannot go on ranging with the view that may be taken by the various judicial authorities is the hierarchy of ST Appl. jurisdiction. We are of the view that there is no referable question of law. 3. In the result, the Reference Application is dismissed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 152
... ...
... ... ..... the assessee is that it must have accrued on 1st Jan., 1976 when it came into force. We find that the assessee s case has to be accepted, because all that the notification says is that the provisions of the Act will apply to the assessee w.e.f. 1st Jan., 1976. Once this fiction is made, we cannot but take in the necessary consequence that the liability under the Act accrued w.e.f. 1st Jan., 1976. Even though the assessee had kept the amount in a separate Post Office Savings Bank account in its own name, the accounts being maintained on mercantile basis, we are not concerned with the payment to the Public Fund but only with the date of accrual of the liability. Since the liability accrued w.e.f. 1st Jan., 1976 which is the first day of the previous year relevant to this assessment year, we have to accept that this expenditure was to be deducted in computing the total income of this assessment year. We, therefore, uphold the order of the CIT (Appeals). The appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 151
... ...
... ... ..... T (A) followed the decision of Madras Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No. 678/Mds/77-78, dt. 5th May, 1978 and held that the payment was received during the financial year. We find that he was justified in directing the ITO to consider this payment as advance-tax payment and thereby cancelling the interest charged of Rs. 23,940. His view is also since found to have been supported by the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Bharat Textile Works and Ors. vs. ITO Circle IV, 3-A, (Company), Ahmedabad and Ors. (1978) 114 ITR 28. The payments were by way of adjustments of refunds to the extent of Rs. 1,64,033 and two payments of Rs. 36,361 and Rs. 36476 made on 13th Dec., 1974 and 18th Dec., 1974 all received well before the end of financial year. The departmental appeal on this point, therefore, fails. 7. In the result, the appeal for asst. yr. 1973-74 is allowed and the appeals for asst. yrs. 1974-75 and 1975-76 are partly allowed on the lines indicated in the preceding paragraphs.
-
1980 (9) TMI 150
... ...
... ... ..... in the individual assessments made on the assessees therein. 9. The departmental representative also referred to s. 26 of the IT Act, 1961 and contended that in any event the income from property in which the deceased had a half share should be assessed in the hands of the heirs. This contention also cannot be accepted. When once it is seen that the assessment has to be made under s. 168, there is no scope for the application of s. 26. This is because under s.168 the assessment is to be made in respect of the income of the estate of a deceased person. There is nothing in that section which provides that such income as is derived from the property comprised in such an estate is to be excluded from the ambit thereof. The estate for the purpose of assessment under s. 168 is to be considered as single estate and, therefore, there is no question of any co-ownership arising at all. 10. In the result, ITA.No.778 (Mad)/79 is allowed and ITA. Nos. 2167 and 2168 (Mad)/79 are dismissed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 149
... ...
... ... ..... e of the property (i.e., right to receive compensation), its marketability and the surrounding circumstances including the risk or hazard of litigation looming large at the relevant date. We are satisfied that though the hazard of litigation in this case was not much, the possibility of delay in receipt of the compensation and the further possibility of receipt of compensation in Govt. bonds at a low rate of interest certainly reduces the value. We are of the view that, after taking into consideration of the relevant facts and circumstances, the right can be valued at Rs. 90,000 as against Rs. 1,16,700 actually received in Govt. bonds in a later year. We hold that it has to be considered an actionable claim, and, therefore, a movable property to the brought to tax. Hence the appeal on this point partly succeeds and the appellant is entitled to a relief of Rs. 26,700. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed on the lines indicated in the immediately preceding paragraph.
-
1980 (9) TMI 148
... ...
... ... ..... tea factory for the purpose of processing the tea. It is on the other hand pointed out by the ld. counsel for the assessee that the generator is only in the factory, that the firm wood is burnt to generate steam to dry the tea leaves and the generator is used to produce electricity to run the motors. 3. We are satisfied that the generator is used in the factory for the purpose of processing the tea. The use of a large quantity of firewood for producing steam does not preclude factual use of electricity for the purpose of driving the motors which also would be necessary in the processing of tea. The generator used will fall within the term general machinery employed in tea factory and unless, as pointed out by the CIT (A) in his appellate order, the generator is specifically excluded from this entry the depreciation at the rate of 15 per cent should be given to the generator forming part of general machinery of the tea factory. The departmental appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 147
... ...
... ... ..... ptl. Representative to the proviso so as to say that the exemption will apply to cases of investments covered under sub-cls. (xv) and (xvi) only where the investments exceed Rs. 1.5 lakhs. This cannot obviously be a correct interpretation because the ceiling for investment under cls. (xv) and (xvi) are much less than Rs. 1.5 lakhs. As pointed out Kerala High Court in CWT vs. H.H. Sethu Parvathi Bayi 1978 CTR (Ker) 168 (1979) 116 ITR 135 (Ker), the ceiling under s. 5(1A) gets enhanced by the amounts of investments specified in sub-cls (xv) and (xvi) though such enhancement stands limited to the maximum eligibel for exemption in respect of each class of investments individually. We find that the Tribunal s decision, relied upon by the ld. Deptl. Representative can no longer be followed after the decision of the Kerala High Court. We, therefore, find absolutely no merit in this appeal, which has, therefore, to be dismissed. 5. In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 146
... ...
... ... ..... h questions the principle of allocation already acceded to. Only the ratio is questioned. Instead of three objects, we find only two objects, one of which is education and the other is a compendious one for others . Instead of 2/3 and 1/3, it will be reasonable to accept that the ratio should be 50 50. 5. In respect of the daughter, the document reads that the gift is given because of affection, for education and others and for marriage and for facilities thereafter. In this case, education assumes even a minor position than that of the gift to the son. We, therefore, find ourselves unable to say that 1/3 considered as reasonable for education is low. In other words, the ratio adopted in respect of gift to the daughter has to be upheld. 6. The appellant is entitled to a relief Rs. 4,570 (the exempt portion in respect of gift made to the son being Rs. 14,250 as against Rs. 9,500 allowed by the GTO in respect of the gift to the son). In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.
-
1980 (9) TMI 145
... ...
... ... ..... from Rs. 3,726 being interest on capital contribution and Rs. 6,000 being the managerial remuneration. The contention of the assessee is that interest on capital contribution should be allowed at Rs. 12 per cent and the managerial remuneration should have been allowed at the rate of Rs. 1,000 p.m. Having regard to the nature of the business carried on, namely, money lending, lorry transport and yarn brooking remuneration can be allowed at the rate of Rs. 1,000 p.m. We are also of the opinion that interest on the capital should be allowed at 12 per cent. On the above basis the value of the gift would work out as follows Average profit . 41,500 Less Interest at 12 per cent on Capital 4,968 . Managerial remuneration Rs. 1,000 p.m. 12,000 16,968 . . 24,532 3 times capitalised 73,596 . . 80 per cent of the above 58,878 . Less Basic exemption 5,000 . Taxable gift . 53,877 We direct that the assessment be modified taking the taxable gift as Rs. 53,877. The appeal is allowed in part.
........
|
