|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 203 Records
-
1981 (2) TMI 83 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
C.C.M.S. Wires or cuts - Liability to duty - Tariff Advice - Legality - Classification - Standard text-books - Significance - Fiscal statute - Meaning - Fiscal/taxing statutes
-
1981 (2) TMI 82 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Refrigerating appliance - Liability to duty - Criteria for - Dictionary meanings - Scope - Trade practice
-
1981 (2) TMI 81 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Income Tax Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... g, where the Law Lord stated Precedent keeps the law predictable and so more or less ascertainable. A lawyer cannot always say with confidence exactly how a judge will decide a point of law. But he can put the decision between fairly narrow limits. In any matter of novelty he will know that the boldest judge will not move more than a small distance beyond that which has already been decided. We think it unwise to deviate from the earlier conclusions and would, therefore, answer the two questions referred to us against the assessee by saying On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in law in holding that the two payments were allowable as revenue expenditure and also that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that it was not a case of sharing of net profit but that it was a case of payment of remuneration for specific services rendered by the German company to the assessee. There would be no order for costs. B. N. MISRA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (2) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Companies, Profits, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... assuming that some significance can be attached to these words, the relief available to the assessee can be determined only on the basis of the operative portion of the rule. As we have already pointed out, the relief available to the assessee is only a proportionate part of that amount which means the amount by which the capital computed under r.1 goes up. In view of this, we do not find any force in the learned counsel s contention that the decision in the present case should be different from the decision in the Bombay case. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the negative by saying that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that the capital of the company as computed under r.1 could be increased by a proportionate amount of the increase in the paid up share capital which took place on 12th September, 1968. As the Commissioner has succeeded, he will be entitled to the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 300. Question answered in the negative.
-
1981 (2) TMI 79 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Plant ... ... ... ... ..... case of complicated process of modern science which is yoked for the preservation of valuable food material. It is not the case of storage but a cold storage. If this is not manufacture , then we do not know what else would be. We find no reason to differ with the view of the Tribunal which has stood the test of time for all these years and more so because no decision to the contrary has been brought to our notice. Otherwise also, we are of the opinion that the process undertaken in the cold storage would be fully covered by cl. (k)(i) because it would certainly be a process of treating the articles of goods with a view to preserve them for their use or sale. It may also be mentioned here that the cold storage is subject to the control and supervision of the Factories Inspector and has been always recognised as a factory under the Factories Act. Consequently, the first question is also answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. No costs.
-
1981 (2) TMI 78 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pension are to be taken as their income. At the time when Shri Adish Kumar Jain died, he left behind his wife, Smt. Shashi Bala Jain, the assessee, one minor son and two minor daughters. The composition of the family remained the same during the accounting periods relevant to both the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75. Under the aforesaid scheme itself, the nominee, Smt. Shashi Bala Jain, the assessee, is merely collector of the family pension on behalf of the family of the deceased. Moreover, the Tribunal has also found that the shares of the family members being definite and ascertainable at the end of the previous year, when an assessment in respect of the family pension is to be raised, the entire amount cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee. She could be taxed only in respect of her share which is definite and ascertainable. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in both the petitions and the same are dismissed with costs. B. S. DHILLON J.-I agree.
-
1981 (2) TMI 77 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Firm, Registration ... ... ... ... ..... ent whereas s. 26A of the Act of 1922 says that a partnership was to be constituted under an instrument . This instrument should specify the individual shares of the partners. The partnership should be genuine, valid and should actually be evidenced by a document as specified in the instrument. Under s. 184(3) an application for registration should be signed by all the partners. Thus, in our opinion, instrument does not mean only a regular partnership deed but it may constitute any other formal transfer. If the terms of a partnership are contained in a number of documents or in the correspondence between the parties, the documents or letters would constitute the instrument of partnership . In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in affirming the order of the AAC and we therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will, however, be no order as to costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
-
1981 (2) TMI 76 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Income Tax Return ... ... ... ... ..... to the ITO to make a fresh assessment. Since we have agreed with the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal this question does not arise nor has it been referred to us. If we had agreed with the principal contention of Shri Verma, we may have had to restore this matter for consideration by the Tribunal but, in the view we have taken, this question does not arise. Again, as pointed out earlier, the Tribunal should perhaps have restored the appeal to the file of the AAC and directed him to deal with the assessee s contentions on the merits of the assessment. But such a plea does not appear to have, been taken before the Tribunal nor has there been any consideration by the Tribunal of that aspect nor has any question been raised or referred in that regard. We, therefore, express no opinion on that aspect of the case. The reference is, therefore, answered, as stated already, in the affirmative. The Commissioner will be entitled to his costs in the reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 200.
-
1981 (2) TMI 75 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Deduction, Income From Other Sources ... ... ... ... ..... id by the assessee on the net value of the stock owned by him was not an allowable expenditure. It was held that for an expenditure to come within the ambit of s. 57(iii) of the I.T. Act, 1961, it must be incidental to the making or earning of the income and there must be nexus between the character of the expenditure and the making or earning of income. This test is satisfied in the present case. The Tribunal has on facts found that the expenditure claimed by the assessee was for the profitable disposal of the assets of the company. The Tribunal has clearly excluded the expenditure relatable to the income from the property. We, therefore, do not find that the Tribunal committed any error in holding that the aforesaid sums were allowable as expenses for each of the two years in question. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1981 (2) TMI 74 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Company, Sales Tax ... ... ... ... ..... , the counsel for the petitioner stated that a proposal has been proposed by the company to the sales tax department. Under the said proposal, the petitioner intends to pay Rs. 50,000 p.m. in order to clear up the past arrears and is also willing to undertake to pay the future demands. I would accordingly make it a condition of the stay that the petitioner shall pay with effect from 31st March, 1981, the first instalment of Rs. 50,000 and thereafter every month Rs. 50,000 would be paid by the last date of each month towards the liquidation of the earlier dues. In addition thereto, the petitioner shall pay the current liability within 15 days of the realisation of the sales tax from its customers on the sale of cars. I, accordingly, dispose of the application in the aforesaid terms. It is made clear that if the condition for the granting of the stay is not complied with by the petitioner, the stay granted shall stand automatically vacated. The parties to bear their own costs.
-
1981 (2) TMI 73 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... nd in the circumstances of the case, the amount of Rs. 33,809 claimed by the assessee in the assessment for the year 1961-62 was an admissible deduction under section 37(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? From the perusal of the statement of facts, it is evident that the amount in dispute was, in fact, incurred as expenses by M/s. Textile Processing Agency. Even though the amount claimed to have been paid by way of commission was disallowed, because the contract of agency had come into being after the accounting year, still it is not disputed that the assessee was bound to reimburse to the said agency for the actual expenditure incurred by the latter. The assessee was, therefore, bound under law to pay the amount in dispute to M/s. Textile Processing Agency and the said amount was, therefore, rightly allowed as business expenditure of the assessee. The question referred to is, accordingly, answered in the affirmative, against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. No costs.
-
1981 (2) TMI 72 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Income From Property, Owner ... ... ... ... ..... chaser agreed to pay to the Estate Office direct in lump sum or in instalments, as the case may be, from the purchaser, Smt. Kala Rani, daughter of Shri Matu Ram, S. C. F. No. 14, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh, as detailed hereinafter and delivered the physical possession of the said property to the purchaser and allowed her to construct and complete the building thereon as per approved plan at her own costs and expenses. The judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan s case 1974 Tax LR 90 does support the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee, but in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala s case 1971 82 ITR 570 (SC), the same cannot be accepted for the correct interpretation of s. 22 of the Act. In this view of the matter, the answer to both the questions, referred to above, are in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The references stand answered accordingly. No costs.
-
1981 (2) TMI 71 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cumstances of each case, the Commissioner himself should direct his mind not to the reasonableness of the cause explained by the assessee but to the factors which are required to be considered by him in giving relief or refusing relief under s. 18B of the Act. The decision of Venkataramiah J. in Shankara Apaya Swami s case 1976 103 ITR 649 (Kar) has been followed in more than one case by this High Court and also by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Seetha Mahalakshmi Rice and Groundnut Oil Mill Contractors Co. v. CIT 1981 127 ITR 579 (AP). As already pointed out, the Commissioner has proceeded on the basis of the reasonableness of the cause for delay in filing the returns which cannot be sustained. Therefore, the Commissioner s order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Commissioner to dispose of the matter under s. 18B of the Act bearing in mind the observations made in the course of this order. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (2) TMI 70 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Disallowed Interest On Borrowed Capital u/s 36(1)(iii) - The capital provided u/s 23 of the Act, by the Central Govt. or thee State Govt. is the capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession - HELD THAT:- In case of CEPT v. Bhartia Electric Steel Co. Ltd. [1953 (5) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], the question was whether it was "money had and received" or "borrowed money". It was held that there has to be a positive act of lending coupled with acceptance by the other side of the money, as a loan. Thus, it is clear that an element of refund or repayment is inherent in the concept of borrowing. There is no provision in the Act which contemplates the repayment of the capital so provided u/s 23 of the Act.
Apart from that, S. 23 of the Act provides that the Central Govt. and the State Govt. may provide any capital. In other words, it is not by virtue of any agreement, etc., between the parties, but because of the statutory provision that the Governments are obliged to provide the capital. It is u/s 26 of the Act that the corporation may borrow money in the open market for the purpose of raising its working capital. Thus, the distinction has been made in the Act itself between the “capital provided” u/s 23 and the "capital borrowed" u/s 26.
There is no obligation to refund the capital provided by the Governments. In this view of the matter, the “capital provided” u/s 23 of the Act by the two Governments, cannot be said to be " capital borrowed as contemplated u/s 36(1)(iii) of the I.T. Act. Thus, the answer to the question is in the negative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the revenue.
-
1981 (2) TMI 69 - ORISSA HIGH COURT
Company, Reserves, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... ce-we are not in a position to accept the submission made at the Bar by the learned standing counsel that the expenditure must be treated to be of capital nature. It is too well known that if the expenditure was intrinsically connected with running of the company and if it had not been incurred the company would not be able to operate in the field of its business, the expenditure would really be relatable to revenue. In the instant case, that is what has exactly happened. We are, therefore, of the view that the Tribunal rightly came to its conclusion that the expenditure was of revenue character and was admissible as a deduction. We, accordingly, answer the question referred to us against the revenue and would say On the facts and circumstances of the case, the expenditure of Rs. 12,620 was deductible as a revenue expenditure under s. 37(1) of the I.T. Act. As there is no appearance for the assessee, there would be no order for costs in the reference. B. N. MISRA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (2) TMI 68 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Income Tax Proceedings ... ... ... ... ..... se of business. From the order of the Tribunal it is seen that the assessee had claimed a large sum of money in connection with the of its retail depots. Of these items, the Tribunal held that expenditure incurred for the making of furniture, for the acquisition of shops and fans were capital in nature but concluded, rightly in our opinion, that so far as the expenditure on remodelling of furniture is concerned, it could not be described as capital in nature. It was only an expenditure incurred for the purposes of remodelling the furniture, necessitated by changes in design and was revenue in nature. The decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kalyanji Mavji and Co. 1980 122 ITR 49 is in point. In the circumstances, we are of opinion that the question referred to us has to be answered by saying that the sum of Rs. 32,431 was deductible as revenue expenditure and that the Tribunal was justified in holding so. In the result, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee.
-
1981 (2) TMI 67 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Industrial Company ... ... ... ... ..... ase of life the process, though not equivalent to the manufacture of a new tyre, stops very little short of it. The nature of the activity in the present case, which is clearly an activity of processing in the sense earlier discussed, is also akin in nature to an industrial or manufacturing activity. They only reason why it cannot be called manufacture is that the old article has not completely lost its identity or got converted into a new type of goods. But, as pointed out by the Tribunal, for all practical purposes and in the commercial sense of the term, the retreaded tyre is almost a new article and indeed it is well known that retreaded tyres are also separately sold in the market in the same way as newly manufactured tyres. For the above reasons, we are of opinion that the question referred to us has to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and we do so. As the Commissioner has failed, he will pay the costs of this reference counsel s fee Rs. 200.
-
1981 (2) TMI 66 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... under s. 147(a) in which clause the word information does not occur and, moreover, this is a case where the ITO had received information as to facts. If there had been any material connecting the specific credits in the assessee s books and leading to an inference of their non-genuineness, the position may be different. But where, all that the ITO has got, is some general information that certain creditors are not genuine money-lenders but only name-lenders and there is nothing to connect the particular cash credits appearing in the books of the assessee with any definite statement or confession of the like made by the creditor or some-one else in respect of the assessee s transaction specifically in question, it is not possible to hold that the conditions precedent for action under s. 147(a) had been fulfilled. For the above reasons, we are in entire agreement with the learned judge and dismiss this appeal. The respondent will be entitled to its costs counsel s fee Rs. 300.
-
1981 (2) TMI 65 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... are declared by the Central Government as the official residences of such Rulers... From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that what has been exempted is the bona fide annual value of the palace of a Ruler of an Indian State which is declared by the Central Govt. as the official residence of such Ruler. The exemption could by no stretch of imagination be held to embrace income in the nature of capital gains realised on the sale of land forming part of the official residence of a Ruler. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal was right in holding that the capital gains realised by the assessee on the sale of plots of land within the compound of Yeshwant Niwas Palace was not exempt from taxation by virtue of para. 15 (1)(iii) of the Taxation Concessions Order. Our answer to the second question in M.C.C. No. 14/81 is, therefore, in the negative and against the assessee. References answered accordingly. Parties shall bear their own costs in both the references.
-
1981 (2) TMI 64 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... paid by the assessee for acquiring the capital asset on the date it was acquired subject to such adjustments as laid down under s. 55, the assessee has no concern with what would be the value of that asset on some subsequent occasion, in other words, subsequent events need not be taken into consideration. The ratio of this decision was followed by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Sutlej Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT 1979 119 ITR 666, though there may be some factual discrepancy, with which we are not concerned. Mr. Balai Pal also referred to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of W. H. Brady and Company Ltd. v., CIT 1979 119 ITR 359. But having regard to the ratio of the Supreme Court decision and the Calcutta High Court decision referred to above, this decision has got no application. In the above premises, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Each party to pay and bear its own costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
....
|
