|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 203 Records
-
1981 (8) TMI 63 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Property Passing ... ... ... ... ..... ch share to his estate passing on death. It is contended by Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the department, that in this case the value of the assets other than the goodwill exceeded the total liability and that the dispute was with respect to the valuation to be placed upon the goodwill. For this purpose, Mr. Joshi relied upon the order of assessment passed by the Asst. Controller. This position is not accepted on behalf of the accountable person. The correct position will have to be ascertained by the Tribunal when it finally comes to dispose of the appeal in the light of our judgment. Accordingly, we answer the question submitted to us as follows The 1/3rd value of the goodwill of the firm of M/s. P. Chunilal and Co. alone was not liable to be charged to estate duty, but the value of the goodwill of the said firm was liable to be taken into account in ascertaining the value of the share of the deceased in the said firm. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1981 (8) TMI 62 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Interest, Refund ... ... ... ... ..... r that the ITO has failed to discharge his duty and grant appropriate amount of interest under s. 214 of the Act in compliance with the order passed by the Commissioner on September 17, 1975. Shri Pradhan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, cannot give any effective answer as to why such an order was not passed. The apprehension of the petitioner is that in view of the instructions issued on October 10, 1975, by the Central Govt., the ITO is not passing the order. It is obvious that the circulars issued by the Government have no force of law, and in any event the circular which came subsequent to the order of the Commissioner has no application to the facts of the present case. The ITO is bound to pass appropriate orders awarding interest to the petitioner under s. 214 of the Act. Accordingly, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from today. The respondents shall pay the costs of the petition.
-
1981 (8) TMI 61 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... Question No. 1 The deceased did not have any defined share in the goodwill of the firm of M/s. Ratnaji Raghunath in which he was a partner, and, therefore, such so-called share could not be property passing on his death or liable to be included in his estate under s. 5 of the E.D. Act, 1953. Question No. 2 In the negative, that is, in favour of the accountable person and against the department. Question No. 3 In the affirmative, that is, in favour of the accountable person and against the department. Question No. 4 In the affirmative, that is, in favour of the accountable person and against the department. In Estate Duty Reference No. 9 of 1979, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the accountable person and against the department. In each of these references, the applicant will pay to the respondent, the costs of the reference which, bearing in mind the length of time which the hearing of these references took, we fix at Rs. 1,000.
-
1981 (8) TMI 60 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Business Expenditure, Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... h a deduction could be claimed only with respect to a debt which is established to have become a bad debt. There can be no doubt about the intention of the Legislature in bringing about this change which could be nothing but to require the assessee to establish that the debt has become, in fact, a bad debt and that a mere writing off of the debt in the books would not be sufficient to claim the deduction under the said clause. The Tribunal, therefore, was not justified in holding the amounts of the debt due from M/s. Jagdish Chemical Works as a bad debt simply on the ground that it had been written off by the assessee in its account books. However, as there were other facts and circumstances also available on the record, which were relied upon by the assessee to show that the amount due had become a debt and the same were not taken into consideration, this case is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision in the light of the observations made above. J. V. GUPTA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (8) TMI 59 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Income, Company ... ... ... ... ..... of the company should be and he is only to judge the legitimacy of the business needs of the company from the point of view of a prudent businessman. The benefit derived or accruing to the company must also be considered from the angle of a prudent businessman. The term benefit to a company in relation to its business, it must be remembered, has a very wide connotation and may not necessarily be capable of being accurately measured in terms of pound, shillings and pence in all cases. Both these aspects have to be considered judiciously, dispassionately without any bias of any kind from the view-point of a reasonable and honest person in business. This reasoning has been approved of by the Supreme Court in the decision referred to hereinbefore. In the premises, the question is answered, as we have indicated before, in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the parties will pay and bear their own costs. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1981 (8) TMI 58 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... nsideration the assessee company was an agent of the American company, namely Dayton. It would appear to us that the view taken by the Tribunal that once the assessee-company becomes liable to pay income-tax as agent of Dayton, it cannot be saddled with the further obligation to make a deduction of tax and be deemed to be in default under s. 201 of the I.T. Act, 1961, is correct. Mr. Joshi has fairly drawn our attention to a decision of the Calcutta High Court where a single judge of the High Court in Bunge and Co. Ltd. v. ITO 1971 79 ITR 93, has come to a similar decision. It has been held in the said case that the same assessee cannot be treated as an agent under s. 163 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and also proceeded against under s. 201 at the same time. In our view, this represents the proper approach to the statutory provisions under consideration. In the result, the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Parties, however, to bear their own costs.
-
1981 (8) TMI 57 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... t went wrong in holding that the calculation of penalty from April 1, 1969, should be under s. 18(1)(i) as substituted by the Finance Act, 1969. The calculation of penalty should be made under s. 18(1)(i) as amended by the W.T. (Amend.) Act, 1964. There is no order as to costs. Before we part with the records we would observe that W.T.A. 96 (Gau) and 97 (Gau) of 1973-74 decided by the Tribunal on December 11, 1974 was set aside by the decision of this court in T. K. Roy v. CWT 1978 115 ITR 746, wherein the majority held that the penalty for default in not filing the return within time as required under s. 18(1)(a) did not contemplate a continuing wrong and the penalty to be determined must be in accordance with the provisions prevailing on the last date on which the return was required to be filed. We are happy to note that the views expressed by Pathak J. (as his Lordship then was) and Singh J. are substantially the same as those in CWT v. Suresh Seth 1981 129 ITR 328 (SC).
-
1981 (8) TMI 56 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Super Profits Tax ... ... ... ... ..... the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Metal Box Company s case 1969 73 ITR 53 (SC), it would appear that the view taken by the Incometax Appellate Tribunal regarding items (b) and (c) is correct and these two funds were liable to the included in the computation of the capital of the company under Sch. II to the S.P.T. Act, 1963, for the purpose of determining the standard deduction under s. 2(9) of the S.P.T. Act, 1963. In other words, as far as these two funds are concerned, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. To summarise, as far as the items (a), (b) and (c) are concerned, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. However, as far as item (d) for proposed dividend is concerned, the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the revenue. Since both sides have partly succeeded and partly failed in the reference, they are directed to bear their own costs of the same.
-
1981 (8) TMI 55 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... the grant of an interim stay to proceed with the impugned notices under s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, the I.T. authorities served a fresh notice for the assessment year 1973-74 on March 20, 1978. In pursuance of this notice, proceedings were commenced by respondent No. 1 and ultimately it was found (by the AAC) on merits that the income has not escaped assessment in the assessment year 1973-74. The matter went right up to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal concurred with the finding (of the AAC) by order dated April 24, 1981. Shri Khatri submits that this fact also indicates that the impugned notices under the present proceedings were without any substance and were totally misconceived. I find considerable merit in this submission. In the absence of any material on record, it is impossible to sustain the impugned notices. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a). In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (8) TMI 54 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
HUF, Interest Of The Individual In HUF Property, Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... 80. 1. Whether, on the facts and In the negative in part, in the in the circumstances of the case, sense that the Tribunal was in the Tribunal was right in law in error in including 1/3rd portion holding that the asset deemed u/s. of the stock-holding. The Tribunal 4(1A)(b) of the W.T. Act to belong should include 1/6th portion to the assessee was 1/3rd portion of the stock-holding of the stock-holding and not 1/12th portion ? 2. If the answer to the above In view of our answer to question question is in the negative and in No. 1, question No. 2 does not favour of the assessee, was 1/12th survive. 1/6th portion of the portion of the stock-holding further stockholding is includible in the taxable in the assessee s hands net wealth of the assessee. under section 4(1)(i) of the W.T. Act as being asset deemed u/s. 4(1A)(c) of the W.T. Act to be indirectly transferred to the assessee s spouse ? All the three references are answered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (8) TMI 53 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ealth-tax is not chargeable may be secured on such property. In either case, the debt is not deductible from the aggregate value of the assets of the assessee. On a plain reading of sub-cl. (ii), it is clear that it does not contemplate cumulative satisfaction of the two conditions before its application as urged on behalf of the assessee. If we accept the argument of the assessee, we would be legislating and not interpreting sub-cl. (ii). To read sub-cl. (ii) in the manner suggested on behalf of the assessee would amount to rewriting the provision. The result of the above discussion is that the debt which is secured on the life insurance policy of the assessee has to be excluded while computing the net wealth of the assessee under s. 2(m)(ii) of the Act. We, therefore, uphold the view taken by the Tribunal and answer the question referred to us in each of these references in the affirmative and against the assessee. References answered accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1981 (8) TMI 52 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ised return and the assessee in exercise of the said right has, in fact, filed a fresh revised return in his capacity as the karta of an HUF in respect of the ancestral properties which were wrongly included in his individual returns, there is no question of imposing any penalty. The view taken by the Tribunal must, therefore, be confirmed. We, accordingly, answer the following questions referred to us as under Question Answer 1. Whether, on the facts and In the affirmative and against the circumstances of the case, the revenue. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in cancelling the penalty imposed by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 ? 2. Whether, the conclusion of In the affirmative and against the Tribunal in deleting the penalty the revenue. imposed by the Wealth-tax Officer under section 18(1)(a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, is right in law and sustainable from the material on record ? There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (8) TMI 51 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... onveyed to the donee not merely the interest in the land in question but also the interest of the donor in the house property standing thereon on the date of the gift. Consequently, it follows that the entire income from the house property subsequent to the date of the gift has t be assessed in the hands of the donee. The question in G.T.R. No. 1/73 is, therefore, answered in the negative and against the assessee. The question in I.T.R. No. 133/74 is also answered in the negative and against the assessee. The same is the position in I.T.Rs. No. 139 and 139-A/78. In I.T.R. No. 10/76 the question is slightly different and we answer it by saying that the Tribunal was not right in holding that only a half share of the property income of Rs. 6,924 was taxable in the hands of the assessee and that the entire amount of Rs. 6,924 was rightly taxed by the ITO. The references are, disposed of accordingly. The Commissioner will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 350 (one set).
-
1981 (8) TMI 50 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Relief ... ... ... ... ..... asic facts found. The controversy is whether, on these facts, the amounts could be said to be, firstly, investment in terms of sub-r. (4) of r. 19 and, secondly, on these facts it can be said that the amounts were not required for the purpose of the business of the undertaking. These were assessed under separate head Income from other sources . There is no finding that there was any separate business carried on by the assessee or that the assessee had any other unit apart from and distinct from the new industrial undertaking. In the premises, the conclusion arrived at on these basic facts, in our opinion, would be a question of law and would be within the ambit of the present question referred to us. In the aforesaid view of the matter, for the reasons mentioned above, we answer the question referred to this court in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties will pay and bear their own costs. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1981 (8) TMI 49 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... s. 35(l1), the rebate already allowed was to be deemed to have been wrongly allowed and the ITO was given the power to recompute the total income of the assessee for the relevant year as if it were a rectification of a mistake apparent from the record, and the period of limitation of four years for the rectification under s. 35(11) was to be computed from the end of the year in which the transfer took place. However, that would be the case only if the said provisions were held applicable to the machineries installed before 1st January, 1958, as in this case. In the view that we are taking on the first question, however, we do not think it necessary to express our opinion on the other question as to the applicability of cl. (i) of Expln. to s. 10(2)(vib) to the machineries in this case. We, accordingly, answer the said two questions as under Question No. 1 In the negative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 Need not be answered. Revenue to pay costs to the assessee.
-
1981 (8) TMI 48 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ative that they should be construed strictly. The law operative on the date when the infringement takes place is the law applicable unless it is made applicable expost facto. Similarly, in CIT v. Smt. Raj Rani Devi 1979 116 ITR 358 (All) the same view has been taken. Following these decisions we hold that the law as applicable on June 29, 1967, and June 29, 1968, for the two years under consideration was applicable and the view taken by the AAC was correct. We, therefore, answer question No. 1 by saying that even for the period of default subsequent to March 31, 1969, the provisions of s. 18(1)(a) of the W.T. Act as they stood prior to their amendment with effect from April 1, 1969, will be applicable or the years 1967-68 and 1968-69. Question No. 2 does not arise. Question No. 1 is, therefore, answered in the negative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. Question No. 2 is returned unanswered. The assessee is entitled to costs which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1981 (8) TMI 47 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Transfer Of Case ... ... ... ... ..... stigation of the case. We are, therefore, unable to accept the submission of Shri Singhvi that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the, ground that it does not show that the objections submitted by the petitioners against the proposed transfer of case were not considered by the Board. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar, AIR 1970 SC 1302, which related to the cancellation of a licence of dealership under the U.P. Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1962, as well as in North Bihar Agency v. State of Bihar 1981 3 SCC 131 AIR 1981 SC 1758, which related to the cancellation of a drug licence, have no application to the present case. Similarly, the decision of the Supreme Court in Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law Board 1966 36 Comp Cas 639 AIR 1967 SC 295 has no application to the present case. No other contention was urged by Shri Singhvi. We, therefore, find no merit in these writ petitions and they are, accordingly, dismissed summarily.
-
1981 (8) TMI 46 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n issued the petitioner-company could have satisfied the authorities that it held the moneys on its own and did not hold it for or on account of respondents Nos. 6, 7 and 8. It has already been stated that no such notice was issued. The action of the TRO in asking the banks to pay the moneys to him was not justified. Since the petitioner-company was unlawfully deprived of the moneys, it is in all fairness entitled to interest at 6 per annum. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to refund to the banks in question the amounts received by them from the banks totalling Rs. 2,34,040.40 with interest at 6 per annum. The banks on receipt of the amount from respondents NOS. 1 and 2 shall forthwith credit the same to the petitioner-company s accounts with them. It shall, however, be open to the respondents to take appropriate action which they may be advised in accordance with law. The petitioner-company will be entitled to costs.
-
1981 (8) TMI 45 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... decline to answer the question and leave it to the Tribunal to take appropriate steps to adjust its decision in the light of the well-settled legal position referred to earlier. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Indian Molasses Co. Pvt. Ltd. 1970 78 ITR 474, we consider it appropriate to decline to answer the question on the ground that the Tribunal has failed to consider and decide the question in all its legal and factual aspects. It will be open to the Tribunal to dispose of the appeals before it in the light of the observations made by this court after determining the said aspect which ought to have been decided. We wish to make it clear, however, that it would not be open to the assessee to raise before the Tribunal the questions which are already concluded by this decision. In the result, for the reasons aforesaid, we decline to answer the question referred to us by the Tribunal for our opinion. Each party shall bear its own costs of the reference.
-
1981 (8) TMI 44 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Agricultural Development Allowance, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... of the deceased employee was an expenditure solely laid out for the purpose of the business and was hence to be allowed. In view of the categorical finding that the expenses incurred though not as a result of any direct obligation but out of commercial expediency, in the context of the Tribunal s observation of commercial requirement of maintaining the relationship between the employer and the employee, in our opinion, the Tribunal arrived at the correct conclusion and question No. 2, referred to at the instance of the assessee, must also be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the premises both the questions referred to at the instance of the assessee are answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee and both the questions referred at the instance of the Commissioner are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, each party will pay and bear its own costs. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
....
|
