|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 203 Records
-
1981 (2) TMI 23 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Double Taxation Relief, Income, Resident ... ... ... ... ..... the assessee in this case and the assessee is also entitled to relief under s. 91 of the I.T. Act, 1961. As we have said before, learned advocates for both sides have made elaborate arguments on the position of the English law after the introduction of the Finance Act, 1965. We feel that it was not advisable to embark on the question whether the present assessee was at all assessable to tax in England in the facts and circumstances of this case. We have proceeded on the basis that the deducted amount be deemed to be the income as stipulated under s. 47(2) of the Finance Act, 1965 (U.K.) of England. In that view of the matter the question for the assessment year 1966-67 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The question for the two assessment years 1967-68 and 1968-69 is also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of this case, parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (2) TMI 22 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Commission ... ... ... ... ..... e the amount by adopting his own standard of reasonableness in substitution for the assessee s standard. This is well-established principle and, if, in the present case the ITO has disallowed the sum of Rs. 25,000 on the ground that it was excessive or unreasonable, there might be something to be said for the assessee but, as we have already pointed, out, the disallowance of Rs. 25,000 was not on this ground. A part of the expenditure has been allowed not as part of the commission paid to the sole selling agent but as representing the expenditure that had been actually incurred by the assessee towards advertisement and travel though such expenditure was claimed to have been incurred by a firm which was found to be non-genuine. For the reasons above mentioned, we are of the opinion that the question referred to us has to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the, department. As the assessee has failed, he will pay the costs to the Commissioner. Counsel s fee Rs. 300.
-
1981 (2) TMI 21 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Partial Partition In HUF ... ... ... ... ..... ty in the sense of the transactions being sale. It is, for all intents and purposes, a change in the mode of enjoyment. We, therefore, agree with the reasoning of the Tribunal for reaching the conclusion that the transaction in question by which the parties agreed to divide the sale proceeds of the land, for purposes of effecting a partition of the land, was valid partial partition of the property in question and, therefore, the ITO was bound to recognise and record it. We have, therefore, to answer question No. 2 of Income-tax Reference No. 117 of 1976 in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 1, in Income-tax Reference No. 117 of 1976, therefore, need not be answered. Consequently, we have also to answer the question referred to us III Income-tax Reference No. 93 of 1976 in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Commissioner shall pay costs of both these references to the assessee.
-
1981 (2) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the firm or in the shares of the partners, as evidenced by the instrument of partnership on the basis of which such registration was granted, the firm need not apply for fresh registration for the assessment year 1962-63. It will be sufficient, if under sub-s. (7) of s. 184 of the Act of 1961 read with r. 24 of the I.T. Rules, 1962, the firm files before the ITO concerned a declaration in Form No. 12 prescribed under the I.T. Rules, 1962. It is agreed by both the counsel that in view of this circular, the assessee-firm was entitled to a renewal of the registration for the assessment years 1962-63 and 1963-64, respectively, and that, question No. 2, as framed by us, must be answered in favour of the assessee. In the result we answer question No. 1, as refrained by us, in the negative, and question No. 2, as reframed by us, in the affirmative. As both the sides have only partly succeeded in the reference and partly lost, there will be no order as to the costs of the reference.
-
1981 (2) TMI 19 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Failure To File Return In Time, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... as finally assessed by the ITO. We are, therefore, of the opinion that having regard to these two significant facts, namely, (1) the assessee believed it bona fide that since its income was to the tune of Rs. 25,854 it was not necessary for it to file the return on the due date and (2) the addition had been made by the ITO on account of a difference in the valuation according to the ITO, of the closing stock of the land, the Tribunal was not justified in concluding that the assessee was liable to be penalised. In that view of the matter, therefore, question No. (3) also must be answered in the negative. Question No. (2), in our opinion, therefore, would not be necessary to be answered. The result is that this reference should be accepted by answering questions Nos. (1) and (3) in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. (2) does not require to be answered at all. The Commissioner shall pay costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1981 (2) TMI 18 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ) or s. 271(1)(a) of the Act is relatable to the delay and not to any other cause. Further, if the delay is explained reasonably, and that could be accepted in respect of one provision of the Act, the same explanation should hold good for proceedings under other sections as well. In this view of the matter, I consider that the lst respondent-Commissioner took into consideration extraneous circumstances in sustaining the levy of interest under s. 139(8)(a) of the Act. Therefore the order of the Commissioner is liable to be set aside and it is so set aside, in so far as it pertains to levy of interest under s. 139(8)(a) of the Act. In the result, the matter is remanded to the 1st respondent-Commissioner to examine the case of the assessee-petitioner for relief in so far as it relates to the levy of interest under s. 139(8)(a) of the Act and pass fresh orders in the light of the observations made by me above. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (2) TMI 17 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The ratio of the said principle, in our opinion, would not he applicable, in view of the facts as found by the Tribunal. Similarly, our attention was also drawn to a Bench decision of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Smt. Vijayanthimala 1977 108 ITR 882. There also the court had no occasion to construe the effect of the filing of an estimate before the expiry of the last date under s. 210 and before any order of penalty was passed. In that view of the matter, the ratio of the said decision, in our opinion, could not also be applicable to the facts of this case. Having regard to the language used in s. 210 read in conjunction with s. 212, and in harmony with the said two decisions referred to hereinbefore, and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal had arrived at a correct decision and we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (2) TMI 16 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Deduction, Dividends ... ... ... ... ..... ith effect from 1st April, 1968, the computation of the relief under s. 80M of the Act will be with reference to the net dividend income and not with reference to the gross dividend income. Under these circumstances, we answer the question referred to us as follows With reference to assessment year 1967-68, the relief under s. 85A will be with reference to the gross dividend income of the assessee. With reference to the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70, the relief under s. 80M will be computed on the income from dividend as computed under the I.T. Act without giving any relief under Chap. VI-A of the Act, that is, on the net income as computed under the provisions of the Act. The question is thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue so far as assessment year 1967-68 is concerned and in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee so far as the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 are concerned. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1981 (2) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Income From Property ... ... ... ... ..... aborti, states that Sri Gobind Jew and Sri Radha, the two Hindu deities, consecrated and installed by Chitra Dassi, were being worshipped by him separately according to the edicts and canons of the Hindu Shastras. The argument of Mr. Pal, that there may be two idols but the deity was, in fact, a single one, does not hold good in the facts and circumstances found by the Tribunal. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Tribunal appears to be sufficiently justified in finding that Sri Gobind Jew and Sri Radha Jew are two different deities having separate existence. In this view of the matter, we answer question No. 1 in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. As question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative, question No. 2 automatically follows in favour of the assessee. This conclusion is corroborated by the decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Bhim Chandra Ghosh 1956 30 ITR 46. There will, however, be no order as to costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
-
1981 (2) TMI 14 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
HUF, Partition ... ... ... ... ..... ued to him. But, that in itself will not be sufficient to bring to tax that which otherwise is not taxable under law. The respondent when he came to know from the report of the Commercial Tax Inspector that there was a partition he should have either proceeded to issue new notices to the petitioners to file their returns or should have proceeded to assess them as tenants-in-common under subs. (3) of s. 3 of the Act bringing to tax only the individual income derived by each of the tenants-in-common. In this view of the matter the petitioners succeed. Rule is made absolute. The impugned order is quashed. The demand notice issued consequent thereto is also quashed as without the authority of law and without jurisdiction. In the circumstances of the case, having regard to the negligence on the part of the lst petitioner to make a representation in regard to the partition that took place prior to his receiving the notice under s. 18(2) of the Act, there will no Order as to costs.
-
1981 (2) TMI 13 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ant in its character as an auctioneer formed part of its trading or business receipts and that the fact that the appellant credited the amount received as sales tax under the head Sales tax collection account did not make any material difference. It was further observed that it is the true nature and quality of the receipt and not the head under which it is entered in the account books as would prove decisive and if a receipt is a trading receipt, the fact that it is not so shown in the account books of the assessee would not prevent the, assessing authority from treating it as trading receipt. Except that, here, the amount in dispute was collected as royalty, there is no point of distinction between the case before the Supreme Court and in the present case. We, therefore, fully agree with the learned counsel for the Revenue that the matter stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the said case and this petition for mandamus is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
-
1981 (2) TMI 12 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... of the palaces in the occupation of the ruler was exempted from income-tax with effect from December 28, 1971. In the circumstances by reason of cl. (19A) of s. 10 of the Act the exemption which was in force prior to December 28, 1971, was not taken away in any manner by the insertion of the said clause which, as stated above, came into force with effect from December 28, 1971. In the circumstances, in our opinion, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the annual value of the Jhabua Palace from April 1, 1971, to December 28, 1971, was also taxable because of the provisions of cl. (19A) of s. 10 of the Act. In our opinion, the ITO was right in taxing the income of the Jhabua Palace which accrued from December 28, 1971. Our answers to questions Nos. (3), (4) and (5) referred to us are, therefore, in the negative and against the Department. The reference is answered accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1981 (2) TMI 11 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Assessment, HUF ... ... ... ... ..... Tribunal found that the partial partition of June 5, 1969, was a genuine partition and it was also recognised by the Tribunal as a good partition for the purposes of s. 171 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal was in error in coming to the conclusion that the capital gains in respect of sale of the Saraspur property could be assessed in the hands of the assessee-HUF. We are not concerned with ascertaining in whose hands those capital gains could have been assessed for the relevant assessment year by the I.T. authorities, so far as the questions referred to us are concerned. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us as follows Question No. (1)-In the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. (2)-It is not necessary to answer this question. Question No. (3)-In the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1981 (2) TMI 10 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ompetent in law, merely on the basis of the list of assets and liabilities filed by the debtor, can it be said that a debt has become bad ? Had the, matter not been pending in court in insolvency proceedings the fact that a debt has become bad can be proved by evidence and a finding on such evidence would be a finding of fact. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the 1st question has to be answered in the negative. With regard to the second question, it is not necessary for us to dilate on it. It is covered by a decision of this court in Misc. Civil Case No. 15 of 1977, decided on September 12, 1980, (CIT v. Lakhmichand Muchhal 1982 134 ITR 234 (MP)). In view of this decision, this question has to be answered in the affirmative. In the result, as indicated hereinabove, we answer question No. 1 in the negative, that is, in favour of the Department and against the assessee and question No. 2 in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Department.
-
1981 (2) TMI 9 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... ds was covered by the loan advanced by the bank itself and thereby reducing the addition of unexplained investment to 30 of the unaccounted for stocks of the value of Rs. 11,48,375? After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusing the order of the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that the proposed question of law does arise. We, therefore, frame the aforesaid question and direct the Tribunal to state the case, for answer, to this Court.
-
1981 (2) TMI 8 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Change Of Law, Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... invalidate the pending reference. We may here state that Shri Jhanjhari, learned counsel for the assessee, submitted, relying on the decision of some other High Courts, that the decisions of this court 1983 143 ITR 182 and 1980 124 ITR 680, require reconsideration, but, we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with his submission and we do not find any cogent reason for reconsideration of the matter and referring the matter to a larger Bench. We, thus answer the first question in the negative, that is, in favour of the Department and against the assessee. With regard to the second question, in the light of the finding of the Tribunal that factually there was no concealment so far as the assessee was concerned, he had disclosed all the facts, and raised a legal question involving the interpretation of s. 2(m)(ii) of the Act. We are of the opinion that this question did not arise at all for reference as a question of law. The reference is answered as indicated hereinabove.
-
1981 (2) TMI 7 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... property remains the same. They added that to have regard for the previous different character of what is indubitably a capital asset at the time of the transfer, would be contrary to the terms of s. 45 and other related provisions of the Act. We agree entirely with this view of the nature of the charge to capital gains under the I.T. Act. The only distinction between the Gujarat case and the present case is that non-capital assets became converted into capital assets by an overt act of the assessee in the one case and by Act of Parliament in the other. But this difference does not affect the principle. The question before us in this reference is Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs. 1,14,000 is liable to be taxed as capital gains ? Having regard to the considerations we have stated above, our answer to the question is in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. The assessee will pay the costs of the Department. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1981 (2) TMI 6 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Juristic Person, Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... or the petitioner also submitted that a registered company is a juristic person liable to be sued in its own name and not through any human being. Section 305, Cr. PC, enjoins upon a juristic company to nominate a representative in any enquiry or proceeding against it. Further, the income-tax returns in question were filed under the signatures of Sri G. M. Modi who has died long back. The present chairman, Sri K. N. Modi, has had no concern with the alleged offence. There is no averment that the present chairman had any hand in the commission of the offence. Hence, the impleadment of the company through its chairman, Sri K. N. Modi, was illegal. Since we are of the opinion that prosecution against the applicant-company cannot be validly proceeded with, it is unnecessary to say anything further on this aspect. In the result, the application succeeds and is allowed. The proceedings pending against the petitioner-company by virtue of the complaint lodged by the ITO are quashed.
-
1981 (2) TMI 5 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Change Of Law, Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ssees are entitled to be given the guidance, at official level, which the statute compels the ITO to render to them. At the end of the discussion we express our opinion on the two questions of law by saying that the answer to both shall be in the affirmative. We may add that so far as the second part of the second question is concerned, we did not hear any arguments from the learned counsel for the assessee that for the period subsequent to the death of the partner, the assessment must be only in the status of a registered firm. The learned counsel agreed that, having regard to the limitations subject to which declaration could be filed even in the present case, the assessment for the period subsequent to December 7, 1969, could only be made in the character of an unregistered firm. This is what the Tribunal had held. In the result, the references are answered accordingly in the affirmative. The Commissioner will pay the costs of the assessee. One set. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1981 (2) TMI 4 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Status, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... arned counsel for the parties we have come to the conclusion that this reference deserves to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. Learned counsel for the assessee referred to decision of the Supreme Court in N. V. Narendranath v. CWT 1969 74 ITR 190. The Supreme Court has held in that case that under the Hindu system of law a joint family may consist of a single male member, his wife and daughter, and there is nothing in the W.T. Act to suggest that an HUF as an assessable unit must consist of at least two male members. This decision has no application in the instant case. In view of the finding that there has been a partition between the assessee, his wife and the sons, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessee was rightly assessed in the status of an individual. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to us is in the affirmative and against the assessee. The parties are directed to bear their own costs in this reference.
....
|
