|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 100 Records
-
1981 (5) TMI 20 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Act providing for exemption from taxation with regard to salaries and emoluments paid to the officials of the United Nations also extended to pensionary benefits, in view of the definition of salary in s. 17 of the 1961 Act. This question does not arise before us as the case has proceeded on the ground that the pension is taxable as there is no reference by the assessee from the Tribunal s conclusion in this regard. In view of our opinion that the child s benefit is the income of the child and not of the participant, we do not think that the above decision has any relevance. We may, once again clarify, that though for the reasons stated by us, the whole of the children s benefits should be exempt from tax, we are concerned in this reference with the chargeability of it to the extent of 1/3rd only. In the result, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee, who will be entitled to costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 350, Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1981 (5) TMI 19 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose ... ... ... ... ..... m its buildings which have been let out, by way of interest from its fixed deposits, etc. These incomes are spent on carrying out its objects, namely, the maintenance of the library and the reading rooms where newspapers and periodicals are provided and printing and purchase of books, etc. It is thus obvious that the society earns income from an activity for profit but the income is utilised exclusively for promotion of its objects. The assessee hence falls within purview of cl. (15) of s. 2, namely, it exists for the advancement of any other object of general public utility not involving the carrying on of any activity for profit. In this view, the objects are charitable purposes within the meaning of s. 2(15) and hence the income is entitled to exemption under ss. 11 and 12 of the Act. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee will be entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1981 (5) TMI 18 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate, Plant ... ... ... ... ..... e manufacture of saccharine would be better carried on in this type of building would not convert the building from the setting to the means for carrying on the business. For, if this was the test, then every air-conditioned factory building would qualify to be included in the expression plant , as there is no doubt that in a hot country like ours, it would result in better performance by the workers. The correct query in the present context appears to be whether the particular features incorporated in the building in question were essential to the manufacturing process and the functioning of the equipment, making it an integral part of the plant. The answer being in the negative, it is apparent that the building in question remained the location and was not converted into the means for carrying on the business. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in favour of the revenue and in the affirmative. The revenue will be entitled to costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 350.
-
1981 (5) TMI 17 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Practice, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... d better be left at this stage to the professional judgment of a hierarchy of I.T. authorities, with the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal at the apex. As stated earlier, the petitioner has already filed an appeal against the order of reassessment, which is pending. If still not satisfied, he would be entitled to appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. If the decision of the Appellate Tribunal also fails to satisfy him, he would be entitled to apply to the Tribunal for a reference on questions of law to the High Court. If the Tribunal refuses to make a reference, he would be entitled to apply directly to the High Court for an order to the Tribunal directing it to state a case. This was the view expressed by a Division Bench of this court in Firm Rasulji Buxji Kathawala v. CIT 1957 32 ITR 592 (Raj). We entirely agree and see no reason to entertain this writ petition at this stage. For all these reasons, this writ petition is wholly unsustainable, and is, therefore, dismissed in limine.
-
1981 (5) TMI 16 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Companies, Liability, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... dates, in the present case, viz., 1st April, 1965, and 1st April, 1966, there is nothing to indicate that there was a definite probability of the company having to meet these liabilities which had not accrued during the accounting year but were likely to accrue in the immediate future. Unless there is on the relevant date some liability, present or future, in the contemplation of the directors of the company, in respect of which the company would be called upon to shoulder the responsibility, the allocation cannot be said to be in the nature of a provision. We are, therefore, in agreement with the conclusion of the Tribunal that there was no known liability as at the relevant date in respect of which the amounts could be said to have been set apart as provision. For the above reasons, we answer the questions referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. As the assessee has succeeded, it will be entitled to its costs of this reference counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1981 (5) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To High Court ... ... ... ... ..... r, in view of the opinion expressed by the Division Bench, that that was a correct position. But, we need not for this purpose rest our decision on this because, even assuming that the valuation report was there and even assuming that the figure of Rs. 27,000 per kottah was taken then it must be admitted that for the undivided one-third share even on this difference of figure between the actual consideration money on the deed and the estimated market value would be less than 15 per cent. which could attract the provision of this section. In the premises, we are of the opinion that in this case the initiation of the proceedings under s. 269D(1) was bad and the order passed under s. 269F(6) by the Tribunal is bad and is not legally tenable and, therefore, they are quashed and set aside. Interim order of injunction of stay passed by this court is vacated. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (5) TMI 14 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... here the assessment orders are set aside after the sale has taken place. This form of restitution cannot be permitted from a stranger. Nor it would be fair to hold so merely because a provision is made for the payment of interest by way of solatium to the auction-purchaser in the event of the sale being set aside. If such restitutions were to be permitted, then there is no sanctity whatever to the auction of properties held for recovery of tax dues from an assessee as no auction-purchaser would come forward to bid at such auction when there is no certainty of his acquiring title to the property. For these reasons, this petition is liable to be rejected though it may cause hardship to the petitioner. All that he would be entitled to is the amount deposited by the auction-purchaser and no more, unless fresh assessment orders for the relevant years have been completed and the amount is adjusted against such dues as may be found. Rule is discharged and the petition is dismissed.
-
1981 (5) TMI 13 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Foreign Enterprise, Ratio Decidendi ... ... ... ... ..... formation concerning industrial, commercial or scientific knowledge, experience or skill to the foreign company. On a careful consideration of this argument, we are unable to agree that the petitioner-company is giving any such information to a foreign company inasmuch as there is no provision in the agreement referred to above. For the reasons recorded above, we are of the opinion that respondent No.11 was not right in saying that the case was covered by the judgment of this court in the case of 1. K. (Bombay), 1979 118 ITR 312 and as such we quash the impugned order and direct that approval be accorded in respect of the petitioner s agreement with the Nepal Company. As far as the agreement with the Singapore Company is concerned, the same being not on record, we would send back the case to the Board for fresh consideration in the light of the observations made above. Since the points involved were not free from difficulty, we would leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1981 (5) TMI 12 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Income ... ... ... ... ..... non-educational purposes, there was no other fact. That by itself, in our opinion, would not be very material. If, however, an educational institution as a source of income was generally or usually used as means of earning income to be utilised for non-educational purposes, then other considerations would apply. In that view of the matter we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was in error in not allowing the assesses the benefit of s. 10(22) of the Act. The trust which owned the educational institution may have other charitable though not educational purposes but if taking all the relevant factors, the educational institution generating the income was existing for only educational purposes then the assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 10(22) of the Act. With these observations, the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties will pay and War, their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (5) TMI 11 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate, Plant ... ... ... ... ..... ns referred to us should be answered as follows ITR No. 1/73 The Tribunal was right in holding that two assessments should be made on the firm, M/s. Sant Lal Arvind Kumar, for the assessment year 1969-70, one in regard to the income for the period April 1, 1968, to July 13, 1968, and the other for the period from July 14, 1968, to March 28, 1969. ITR No. 64/73 The Appellate Tribunal was right in directing that two separate assessments should be made on the firm, M/s. K. Gian Chand Jain and Company, for the assessment year 1966-67, one in regard to the income for the period from October 24, 1964, to February 5, 1965, and the other in regard to the period from February 6, 1965, to October 23, 1965. We make no. order as to costs. Before parting with the cases, we would like to place on record our appreciation of the neat and succinct arguments of Sri T. M. Ansari whom, in the absence of any appearance for the assessee in ITR No. 1/73, we requested to assist us as amicus curiae.
-
1981 (5) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... of the fact and the finding, which finding of fact has not been specifically challenged in the question posed before us, in our opinion, the decision of the Tribunal was correct and the question must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Reliance was placed on certain observations of the courts. Reference was made to the observations of the Delhi High Court in the case of Durga Timber Works v. CIT 1971 79 ITR 63 (Delhi) as well as to the observations of the Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. P. B. Shah and Co. (P.) Ltd. 1978 113 ITR 587 (Cal) but inasmuch as the problems in these two cases were practically distinct and different, in our opinion, the observations in those decisions would not be of much assistance in resolving the controversy posed before us in the instant case. In the premises, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (5) TMI 9 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Sugar Industry ... ... ... ... ..... preciation is not claimable under s. 32 as put forth by the counsel for the Revenue and we assume that to be so, the deduction claimed would still be revenue expenditure contradistinct to capital expenditure, expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. Tools and implements, laboratory equipments, and furniture and fixtures, of the kind enumerated in the list were required to carry on the assessee s business more efficiently and profitably in the company s two units known as Isgec Unit and Sugar Mills Unit. Thus, question No. 2, has also to be answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue holding that the expenditure representing the cost of tools and implements, laboratory equipments, and furniture and fixtures, of the kind mentioned in the statement of the case is an allowable deduction under s.37 of the Act. Both the questions are answered in favour of the assessee in the light of the observations made above. No costs
-
1981 (5) TMI 8 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... ion of the premises. The interest of the business being paramount, the assessee went in to invest the amount for the repairs and incurred this expenditure, which was wholly and exclusively for the purpose of its business. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Empire jute Company s case 1980 124 ITR I and L. H. Sugar Factory s case 1980 125 ITR 293 (SC), and the decisions of this court in Bharat Cinema 1980 121 ITR 165 (P and H) and Bhagat Industries Corporation 1980 126 ITR 645 (P and H), the benefit even if it is taken to be of an enduring nature, though it was not, does not fall within the realm of capital expenditure for taxation. It was revenue expenditure wholly and exclusively spent for the business of the assessee and is thus an expenditure of revenue nature. The assessee was entitled to claim its exemption and the decision of the Tribunal was not correct. For the foregoing reasons, the reference is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.
-
1981 (5) TMI 7 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ares which bad not till that date been surrendered and that the liability in respect of them was calculated on the basis of Rs. 10-4-0 per share at Rs. 48,43,627 and the calculation was not made at Rs 5 per share. The assessee produced before the authorities a statement showing that the payments had been made by him for the period October 1, 1958. The authorities came to the conclusion that the said payments made did not exceed even the interest payable at Rs. 67,00,000 in any one year at the usual rate of interest. In view of these findings, the irresistible conclusion is that the dominant intention of the assessee was to embark on a venture in the nature of trade and the gain resulting therefrom was as a result of an activity, which itself was a business activity. For the reasons recorded above, we will answer both the questions referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the department and against the assessee. The assessee will pay costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1981 (5) TMI 6 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Derived, Exports, Profits Derived From Exports, Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... pe of case cannot be regarded as profit derived from export. As discussed above, the word derive as far as income-tax law is concerned, has been given a narrow meaning-a restricted meaning-by the courts and has been understood in the restricted sense of a direct derivation and not understood in the broad sense as equivalent to derived directly or indirectly. The proximate source of the saving is not the export of goods but the import entitlements and import licences which are not transferable. Therefore, following the decisions of the Privy Council, the Supreme Court, Kerala High Court, and Bombay High Court, in our opinion, the assessee-company is not entitled to include the savings made by it, on account of import of raw materials as stated above, in the profits and gains derived from the export of goods. In the result, the questions referred to us in each of the references is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee-company. There would be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (5) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Loss, Loss Due To Devaluation ... ... ... ... ..... ting to the profit runs counter to those observations, we must adhere to the decision of the larger bench. In that view of the position that in this case there being a finding of the ITO, which not having been varied or altered, that the repatriation was done to the head office in January to March 1968, that is subsequent to the relevant assessment year, and the Tribunal having held that the sum in question was used as circulating capital in India and that there was no diminution of the value of the Indian currency there was, in our opinion, no revenue loss in the year in question. Whether there was revenue loss in the subsequent year, that is to say in the year when it was eventually accounted for in dinars or not, is not a question with which we are concerned in this reference. In the premises, the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (5) TMI 4 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to be reopened under s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, or under s. 34 of the 1922 Act. In this case the reopening is not under challenge by any question before us. If that is the position, then, in our opinion, this principle of double taxation cannot be attracted as is sought to be done. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal, in our opinion, was right in the conclusion they arrived at. Learned advocate for the Revenue, however, sought to draw some support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Y. Narayana Chetty v. ITO 1959 35 ITR 388. That decision was in the context of a different controversy and we do not think that much help would be obtained from a detailed analysis of the said decision for the purpose of adjudication of the controversy before us. In the premises, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (5) TMI 3 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Attributable To, Attributable To Priority Industry, Priority Industry, Relief ... ... ... ... ..... of the purpose for which the section has been introduced. (See in this connection, the observations of this court in the case of CIT v. Sainthia Rice and Oil Mills 1971 82 ITR 778, at p. 781). And the purpose of provisions like s. 80-1, which was to encourage development or growth of priority industry, should be reasonably construed. Reliance may be placed, in this connection, on the observation of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Gaekwar Foam and Rubber Co. Ltd. 1959 35 ITR 662 at 1). 672. Having regard to these principles, in our opinion, in the background of the facts found by the Tribunal, the Tribunal was right in granting relief under s. 80-1 to the assessee on the profits derived from the sale of lime manufactured by it. In the premises, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and in the circumstances of the case, parties will pay and bear their own costs. SUDHINDRA MOHAN GUHA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (5) TMI 2 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Accrual, Income ... ... ... ... ..... on acquisition to the date of payment of compensation. The interest is not an integral part of the compensation but it is distinct and separate. The compensation is paid for the dispossession of the rightful owner of the property on acquisition and the statutory interest is paid on the compensation awarded. Such compensation may be ascertained on a date subsequent to the date of possession of the property by the Collector from the rightful owner. The interest accrues to the assessee on the determination of the compensation to be payable to him. After such determination the interest is deemed to have accrued year after year and only the amount received as interest in the accounting year would be assessed to tax in that year and not the entire amount. In the above premises, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. As all the High Courts are unanimous on the point, we are making the Revenue liable to pay the costs. SABYASACHI MUKHARJI J.-I agree.
-
1981 (5) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Held that the making of an assessment against a declarant on his disclosure statement under s. 24 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1965, cannot deprive an ITO of jurisdiction to assess the same receipt in the hands of another person if, in a properly constituted assessment proceeding under the I.T. Act, the receipt can be regarded as the taxable income of such other person
|
