|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 263 Records
-
1981 (9) TMI 86 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Penalty, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... ty. Therefore, looking to the scheme of the C. (P.) S.T. Act, the purpose which it was intended to serve and the clear language used in the relevant provisions, we are inclined to agree with the view taken in the Calcutta Chromotype Pvt. Ltd. 1971 80 ITR 627 (Cal) and hold that the ITO is not entitled to impose a penalty on the ground of the failure to file a return within the time prescribed under sub-s. (1) or sub-s. (2) of s. 5 when the return is filed before the assessment is made and the ITO accepts it and completes the assessment on the basis of such a return. In other words, s. 9 envisages the levy of a penalty for the failure to file a return under s. 5 without reasonable cause and not for the failure to file a return within the time prescribed under sub-s. (1) or sub-s. (2) thereof. Our answer to the question referred, therefore, is in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee is entitled to costs which we assess at Rs. 200.
-
1981 (9) TMI 85 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... t it was necessary to reverse the earlier practice. That opportunity also was not availed of by the revenue. The Tribunal appears to be right when it concluded that there was total absence of any reason or material for the ITO to be satisfied that it was necessary to reverse the process hitherto followed. If that be so, question No. 4 has to be answered against the revenue. Once that question is so answered, it becomes unnecessary to express any opinion on questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Accordingly, we answer the questions referred to us as follows Question No. 4 In the negative and in favour of the assessee. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that the ITO was not competent to include the income of the assessee s husband in the hands of the assessee. Questions Nos. 1 to 3 In view of the answer to question No. 4, it is unnecessary to answer these questions. In the special circumstances of this case, the parties are directed to bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1981 (9) TMI 84 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Assessee, Company, Super Tax On Undistributed Profits ... ... ... ... ..... zable value. Once the amount of Rs. 12.000 could be regarded as having been properly provided for out of the disposable surplus of about Rs. 14,000, the balance then left is not of that magnitude which will require the application of s. 23A of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Gangadhar Banerjee and Co. (Private) Ltd. 1965 57 ITR 176 as well as by this court in several cases, in our opinion, the Tribunal was in error in upholding the application of s. 23A even for the fourth assessment year under consideration. In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as under Question No. 2 The provisions of s. 23A(1) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, were not rightly applied in the assessee s case. The answer is thus in favour of the assessee. Questions Nos. 1 and 3 In view of the answer given to question No. 2, it is not necessary to answer these questions. The Commissioner to pay costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1981 (9) TMI 82 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Current Repairs ... ... ... ... ..... alakshmi Textile Mills case 1967 66 ITR 710 (SC) is directly in point. There are decided cases that the cost of reconstruction of a chimney in a factory, expenses, on renovating roofs and flooring expenses, for panelling walls with wood, expenditure for replacing the engine of a bus and the cost incurred by a railway company for reconditioning the engine boilers, etc., are allowable as expenditure on repairs. In the light of these decisions, it is clear that the expenditure in this case, where there has only been a substitution, in a plant maintained by the assessee, of old and worn out parts by new parts, which has not substantially changed the identity of the plant or effected any improvements in its efficiency, is an expenditure on current repairs and hence allowable. We therefore, 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 the costs of these references. Counsel s fee Rs. 350.
-
1981 (9) TMI 81 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... he product dealt in by the assessee is derived from molasses make a difference to the applicability of the entry which confers a higher rate of depreciation on distillers and storage tanks and plant used for storage, distribution, etc., of a substance corrosive by nature irrespective of its source. For the reasons discussed above even if the answer to all these three questions may not be given clearly in favour of the assessee by everyone, it cannot be said that two opinions are not conceivable and tenable in respect of each of them. Whether, therefore, the grant of depreciation should, on proper interpretation, be at 7 per cent. or 10 per cent., the grant of the higher depreciation in the first instance cannot be withdrawn by recourse to s. 154. We therefore, answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Since, however, this is a case in which there has been a considerable difference of opinion at all levels, we make no order as to costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 80 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Property Passing ... ... ... ... ..... 1 (Kar), CED v. Estate Of Late Omprakash Bajaj 1977 110 ITR 263 (AP), Blanche Nathalia 1964 53 ITR (ED) 64 (Mys), Shantaben Narottamdas 1978 111 ITR 365 (Guj) and CED v. Smt. P. Leelavathamma 1978 112 ITR 739 (AP). There is, therefore, no escape from the conclusion, for the reasons stated above, that a passing of the property as well as the exigibility to estate duty both arise at a point of time, however so small, next to the point of time at which death of the deceased had taken place. In this view of the matter, the argument advanced on behalf of the accountable person cannot survive. In the conclusion, for the reasons stated above, the contention urged by the learned counsel for the accountable person has just to be rejected and the question referred is to be answered in the negative and against the accountable person. We answer the question accordingly. The accountable person will pay costs of the department. Advocate s fee, Rs. 200 (rupees two hundred). DAs J.-I agree.
-
1981 (9) TMI 79 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... to the facts of this case or the controversy with which we are confronted. In this background, in our opinion, the appropriate order should be, as was passed by the Patna High Court in the case of Maharani Kanak Kumari Sahiba v. CIT 1955 28 ITR 462 and, for the reasons aforesaid, we will answer question No. 2 by saying that the Tribunal was not justified in passing the remand order and, therefore, it is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. So far as question No. 1 is concerned, we will answer the question by saying the, as the appeal has not been disposed of by the Tribunal in view of the fact that the Tribunal has not decided about the conclusion arrived at by the AAC, as we have indicated before, the question is answered in the negative. The Tribunal will now be entitled to dispose of the appeal in the light of the observations made herein. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties will pay and bear their own costs. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1981 (9) TMI 78 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Information, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... nflict among various High Courts about the interpretation of s. 34(1)(b), some courts having taken the view that the information which the ITO was required to have under that section was to be from some material other than the one which was already before him. The question has now been set at rest by the aforecited decision of the Supreme Court which has now expressly held that an error discovered on the same material (and no more) does not give the ITO power under s. 147(b). Therefore, it is not necessary to deal with the said decision in detail. In that view of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the Revenue supporting the validity of the proceedings under s. 147(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961, cannot be accepted. In the result, we answer the questions as follows Question No. 1 In the negative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 In view of our answer to question No. 1, it is, not necessary to answer question No. 2. Revenue to pay costs of the assessee.
-
1981 (9) TMI 77 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Power To Remand Case, Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... accounts. This being a full-scale enquiry, in the fitness of things, the Tribunal was justified in making the order. This apart, the learned Tribunal relied on the set principles on the basis of which it had remanded a similar case, namely, Assam Forest Products (P.) Ltd. 1977 110 ITR 558 (Gauhati). The principles have been accepted by this court in Assam Forest Products 1977 110 ITR 558. In the result we conclude that the power of remand was exercised in a disciplined and responsible manner, strictly in accordance with the principles the Tribunal had followed in its earlier decision. Therefore, our answer to the question is in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. There is no order as to costs. Let a copy of the judgment be sent under the seal of the court and signature of the Registrar to the Appellate Tribunal which shall pass such orders as are necessary to dispose of the case conformably to the judgment. B. L. HANSARIA J.-I agree.
-
1981 (9) TMI 75 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... would be wrong and so no further additional income can be added in reassessment proceedings. Inasmuch as the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has remanded the case for fully ascertaining the genuineness of M/s. Afgan Fruit Company and also the question as to what Shri Gulab Singh Jain said about the said firm and the correctness of that assertion, we think that the Tribunal has acted rightly. The jurisdiction question and the merits of making an addition to the income-tax liability are inter-connected in this case. The basic jurisdictional fact has in a sense yet to be established. We, therefore, endorse the Tribunal s view. We hold, on the facts of the present case, that the assessment could be reopened and answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the department and against the assessee. As the eventual correctness of the stand of either party is still to be ascertained in the remanded proceedings, we would leave the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 74 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Penalty, Self-Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... o very little to frustrate the intention of the holding company, the fact remains that the company was not financially in a position to pay the taxes. The lenient view taken by the CBDT of the various circumstances also clearly shows that it could not have been a case where the company had deliberately frittered away its funds to avoid payment of taxes. If that had been so the Central Board would not have taken a sympathetic view of the circumstances and given time to the assessee for the payment of its taxes. The view taken by the Tribunal in relation to the non-payment of advance tax is also a consistent circumstance to indicate that the non-payment of tax by the assessee at this period of time was on account of reasons beyond its control. For the above reasons, we are of opinion that the question referred to us should be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. As the Commissioner has failed, he will pay the costs of the reference. Counsel s fee, Rs. 350.
-
1981 (9) TMI 73 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Information, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... ) must have a rational connection or relevant bearing to the formation of the belief that income has escaped assessment and that the order of the AAC was not an information of this nature. We are unable to agree with this submission also. The said order of the AAC could reasonably give rise to the belief that the amount of compensation was taxable as capital gains and had escaped assessment as was the case in the Delhi and Allahabad decisions referred to above. For the reasons given above, we answer both the questions in favour of the department and against the assessee as follows 1. The ITO was competent to reopen the assessment under s. 147(b) on the basis of the finding contained in the AAC s order dated 21st March, 1973, for taxing the amount of compensation as income under the head Capital gains . 2. The ITO s action in initiating proceedings under s. 147(b) was legal even though ultimately it may affect the finality of the assessment. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 72 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Need For Uniform Decisions, Practice ... ... ... ... ..... himanlal J. Dalal and Co. 1965 57 ITR 285 (Bom). In the latter case the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Kantilal Nathuchand 1964 53 ITR 420 was doubted but still followed for the sake of uniformity. We are aware that the practice is not uniform among the High Courts, but nevertheless we are of opinion that it is a desirable one. Unless the judgment of another High Court dealing with an identical or comparable provision can be regarded as Per incurium, it should ordinarily be followed. In our view, the decisions of the Kerala and the Punjab and Haryana High Courts dealing with identical provisions conclude the question in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. The considerations of hardship and of double taxation which undoubtedly weighed with the Tribunal are not decisive. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the revenue. In the special circumstance of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 71 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e ratio of the judgment of this court in the case of New India Colour Co. 1971 80 ITR 206. It ought to have appreciated that a valid gift was possible by means of such book entries and should have examined the extent of cash and bank balances of the assessee and the nature of the account in which the entries were made before coming to a conclusion one way or the other. Question No. 1 In view of the answer to question No. 2, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the gift made by Jai Gopal in favour of his minor son was not a valid gift and the assessee was not entitled to get any deduction of the interest paid to the donee. The questions in the other three references are also answered in the same manner. The result of our decision will be to restore to its file the appeals before the Tribunal which it should proceed to dispose of afresh in the light of our above discussion. The references are disposed of accordingly but, in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 70 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Income From House Property ... ... ... ... ..... one of the simplest sections in the I.T. Act, 1961, consistently construed on the basis of the well-settled concepts that it taxes the owner of a property in respect of a notional income from the property irrespective of the actual derivation of any income or enjoyment thereof by the owner and that there is no notion of beneficial ownership under the India law. We do not feel that this line of authorities should be disturbed and an element of uncertainty and indefiniteness introduced into the interpretation of s. 9 of the 1922 Act or s. 22 of the 1961 Act on mere considerations of possible hardship. We may leave it to the Legislature to remedy the situation as and when such transactions become the rule rather than the exception and the section, in its present form, faces practical hurdles in application which need to be overcome. In the result, the question has to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue who will be entitled to costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 350.
-
1981 (9) TMI 69 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Change Of Law, Reassessment, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... a defect in the application for registration. If the application for registration is not in order, the ITO is to intimate the defect to the firm and give an opportunity to rectify the defect in the application. However, the rectification is not in respect of the application for registration but it was a defect in the deed. This apart, it appears clear that the rectification of the deed was made beyond the accounting year and the application for rectification was made on December 2, 1969. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the learned Tribunal was correct in law in upholding the order of refusal of registration for the assessment year. In the result, the answer is decided against the assessee and in favour of the revenue. Let a copy of the judgment be sent under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar to the learned Appellate Tribunal which shall pass such orders as are necessary to dispose of the case conformably to such judgment. T. C. DAS J.-I agree.
-
1981 (9) TMI 68 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... s parlance as retained profits . Retained profits may be retained for the purpose either of meeting and reducing the present liabilities or for meeting the working capital required in praesenti or for the reduction of loans and borrowings or for a future expansion of the company. Regarded in any of these ways, such retained amounts must be regarded as moneys required for the purpose of the business of the company like the . It is clear to us that the view taken by the Tribunal was entirely correct, and if that be so, question No. 2 will be required to be answered in favour of the assessee. In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows Question No. 1 . In view of the decision given by us earlier in Income-tax Reference No. 181 of 1971 decided on 4th September, 1981 (CIT v. Zenith Steel Pipes Ltd. 1982 137 ITR 34), in the negative and in favour of the revenue. Question No. 2 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 67 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... 43(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961, clearly showed that initial depreciation was not to be deducted in computing the written down value of the assets for computing the capital employed by a newly established industrial undertaking for the purpose of determining the deductions under s. 84 (now s. 80J) of the I.T. Act. However, in the judgment of the court, unfortunately one does not find any reasoning for the said finding As we have pointed out above, there was nothing in the provisions of r. 19(1) or (6) read with s. 43(6) to hold that the initial depreciation was to be excluded in determining the written down value for computing capital under s. 84. On the contrary, the said provisions indicate otherwise. The said decision, therefore, cannot take the matter for the assessee any further. For the reasons stated above, therefore, the question referred to us is answered in the negative, that is, in favour of the revenue. The assessee to pay the costs of this reference to the revenue.
-
1981 (9) TMI 66 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Additional Super Tax, Closely Held Company, Company ... ... ... ... ..... 45,000 to the general reserve account. Indeed, it was neither held by the ITO nor contended before the AAC or the Tribunal that such a transfer was a device or a fictitious one or a make-believe action. As a matter of fact, the ITO in his order has proceeded on the basis that the distributable surplus available was Rs. 39,081 after taking into consideration the transfer of the sum of Rs. 45,000 to the general reserve account. He never doubted the genuineness or propriety of the transfer to the general reserve fund. In this background and in view of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the decision, referred to hereinbefore, we cannot say that the Tribunal has arrived at an erroneous decision by setting aside the order of the ITO. In the premises, the question referred to this court must be answered in the affirmative 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 (9) TMI 65 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Interest On Borrowed Capital ... ... ... ... ..... original business of the assessee. It was an independent venture. Accordingly, he confirmed the order of the ITO and dismissed the appeal. The assessee, thereafter, came in second appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal observed that the facts of the present case were fully covered by the decision in Calico Dyeing s case 1958 34 ITR 265 (Bom). In our opinion, the view taken by the Tribunal is correct. It is not possible to hold that this is a separate and entirely new undertaking which is to be regarded as something different a totally independent venture unconnected with existing business of the assessee. It is clear that the AAC had totally misunderstood the ratio of the decision of this court in Calico Dyeing s case 1958 34 ITR 265. Accordingly, the question referred to us is answered as follows In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in allowing the deduction of Rs. 21,117. The answer is accordingly in favour of the assessee. Parties to bear their own costs of the reference.
....
|
