Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 263 Records
-
1981 (9) TMI 64 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... assessee. Before we conclude we must note that the learned advocate for the defendant drew our attention to the decision of the Delhi High Court in Gee Vee Enterprises v. Addl. CIT 1975 99 ITR 375 (Delhi), the decision upon which the Tribunal had also relied. He drew our attention to certain observations at pp. 384 onwards. These observations dealt with the question whether before taking action under s. 263, the Commissioner was required to make any enquiry or investigation as such, and come to a definite finding. We are not concerned with this aspect of the matter. Therefore, we are of the opinion, that this decision is not of much assistance on the question involved before us. In the premises, question No. 1 is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. We decline to answer question No. 2 in the view we have taken. Question No. 3 is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The parties would pay and bear their own costs. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1981 (9) TMI 63 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Association Of Persons ... ... ... ... ..... is also apparent that the lease of the furnishings, fixtures, etc., would not have been accepted without the lease of the cinema building. Thus, the first two questions posed by the Supreme Court have to be answered in the affirmative and the third one in the negative. In this view the Tribunal was right in holding that the lease income from the cinema building and furniture, etc., was inseparable and composite. That answers the second question. On the findings in respect of the three questions the position is that the assessee could be assessed in the status of an association of persons and that the income from Jeewan Cinema was inseparable and composite. It is evident that such an income could not be taxed under the head Income from property and was correctly taxed under the head Income from other sources . In the result, all the three questions are answered in the affirmative, in favour of the Department and against the assessee, with costs, which are assessed at Rs. 200.
-
1981 (9) TMI 62 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... him to furnish the requisite material but as long as that situation does not exist, the Officer is entitled to call upon the assessee to produce only that material which is relatable to the item set out in the reasons given for reopening the assessment. Save and except this clarification, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in respect of the notices served for the assessment years 1967-68 till 1973-74. Accordingly, the petition partly succeeds and the notices served by the respondents under s. 148 of the Act for the assessment years 1959-60 till 1966-67 are quashed and the respondents are restrained from adopting any proceedings in pursuance of those notices. The relief sought by the petitioner in respect of notices for the assessment years 1967-68 till 1973-74 is refused save and except the clarification made in connection with the material which the Officer can call upon the assessee to produce. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 61 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... ills 1977 108 ITR 466, had also taken the same view. This decision of the Full Bench case of Andhra Pradesh High Court was overruled in Addl. CIT v. Vinayaka Cinema 1977 110 ITR 468 by (a fuller Bench by) a majority of three against two. We respectfully agree with the view of the Punjab High Court and the earlier Full Bench view of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the minority judgment in Vinayaka Cinema s case 1977 110 ITR 468 (AP) FB . For the same reason we respectfully do not agree with the view taken by the majority in Vinayaka Cinema s case and by the Allahabad High Court in Dahi Laxmi Dal Factory v. ITO 1976 103 ITR 517 (All) FB and with the view expressed by the Gujarat High Court in Addl. CIT v. Harjivandas Hathibhai 1977 108 ITR 517. For the reasons given above, we answer all the questions in the affirmative, in favour of the Department and against the assessee. Having regard to the sharp difference of opinion, there will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1981 (9) TMI 60 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Company, Employer, Income ... ... ... ... ..... value. It was for the Department, to find out the reasonable rent when the assessee is the owner of the house. We, must accept as a fact that the Department, held Rs. 4,200 annually to be the reasonable rent for this property equally the reasonable rent for half of that property cannot be more, than Rs. 4.200 in the, hands of the present assessee. In fact, this question could not be re-opened in the case of the present assessee. In this view of the matter, we would answer the questions referred to us for the several years in favour of the assessee and against the Department. We would hold in ITR No. 12/73 that the quantum of perquisite could not be increased from Rs. 4,200 to Rs. 12,500 and for the assessment years 1967-68 to 1968-69, we would answer the question referred in the negative and hold that the value of the perquisite can at the most be Rs. 4,200 per annum which was the amount accepted by the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1981 (9) TMI 59 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate, Development Rebate Reserve ... ... ... ... ..... h s. 34(3) and had also filed revised return based on the said accounts. There was also no allegation or, any material to hold that before the assessee-firm rectified its accounts and filed a revised return, the partners had in any manner acted on the initial, accounts. Therefore, on the position in law discussed above, in this case, so far as the ITO was concerned, the accounts of the firm before him on which the revised return was filed which the ITO could not, ignore had fully complied with the statutory conditions of s 34(3). He was, therefore, bound to allow the assessee the deductions on account of development rebate and was not justified in rejecting the same on the ground that the assessee had not created the reserve in its accounts when the books were produced by the assessee for the first time before him. In that view of the matter, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Revenue to pay the costs of the reference.
-
1981 (9) TMI 58 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Priority Industry ... ... ... ... ..... stion there was whether the manufacture of the said automobile ancillaries would cease to be so, merely because they were used in the cars manufactured by the assessee itself. The court held in the negative. The said decision also can have no application to this case. In our view, therefore, the Tribunal s order holding that the articles manufactured by the assessee were equipments for the transmission of electricity so as to entitle the assessee to the benefit of the deduction under s. 80E or s. 80-I or to the higher development rebate under the relevant part of s. 33, cannot be sustained. In the result, we answer the questions as follows Assessment years 1966-67 and 1967-68 Question No. 1 In the negative and against the assessee. Question No. 2 In the negative and against the assessee. Assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 Question No. 1 In the negative and against the assessee. Question No. 2 In the negative and against the assessee. Assessee to pay costs of the reference.
-
1981 (9) TMI 57 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate, Higher Rate, New Industrial Undertaking, Relief ... ... ... ... ..... . 7 in the Fifth Schedule. That item relates to equipment for the generation and transmission of electricity and it is in that context that the inclusive part mentions transformers, cables and transmission towers. Necessarily what is taken in is not any cable but a cable concerned with the transmission of electricity. It need not be concerned with the generation of electricity, since nevertheless, it has been brought within item No. 7 because of the inclusive definition. Read in the context in which the term cable appears in the provision, the indication, that what is referred to is a cable used for the transmission of electricity, and not any cable whatsoever, is clear. Hence also the assessee would not succeed. The consequence is that question No.1 will have to be answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and seal of the High Court will be sent to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1981 (9) TMI 56 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Reassessment, Relief U/S 80MM ... ... ... ... ..... ceipts was totally unsustainable. The impugned notice requires to be struck down on this count alone. The submission of Shri Dastur that the assumption of jurisdiction under s. 147 of the Act by respondent No.1 was without any basis and was totally misconceived also requires acceptance. The notice does not set out any reasons which prompted the ITO to exercise the jurisdiction. The queries made by the petitioners about the material in possession of the respondents to come to the conclusion that the case was one of the escaped assessment were not answered, The respondents have not filed any return in answer to the petition, and in such circumstances it is impossible to hold that the requirements of s. 147 of the Act are complied with. In these circumstances, the impugned notice is required to be quashed. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 55 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Commissioner, Res Judicata, Revision, Trading Loss ... ... ... ... ..... are of the view that on the question of principle of law, one Tribunal is not bound by the decision of another Tribunal. It is now well settled that the decision of the ITO or a Tribunal in regard to a particular year does not operate as res judicata for the subsequent year. If the appellant had been aggrieved, it could have challenged the decision of the Tribunal on a reference to this court. The appellant, in our opinion, cannot rely upon the decision of the Tribunal for the assessment year 1968-69 for the assessment year 1967-68. Apart from what has been said above, the learned judge was also justified in his observation that there was no error apparent on the face of the order of the Commissioner, which only would enable this court to quash the order. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment of the learned judge is affirmed and this appeal is dismissed. In view, however, of the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order for costs. A. K. SIRKAR J.-I agree.
-
1981 (9) TMI 54 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... s. However, even if they were to be answered, we find that the Tribunal in both its orders, namely, for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62, dated 21st September, 1967, and for the subsequent assessment years 1962-63 to 1964-65 dated 8th October, 1969 (annexes. E and F respectively), has given cogent reasons for arriving at its finding that the said commission from the profits paid by the assessee to its directors was not excessive or unreasonable. There was no allegation that the said finding was either mala fide or perverse. We would, therefore, accept the said finding of the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, firstly, we do not think that the said questions framed, being purely questions of fact, were referable to this court. However, if the same were to be answered, we would answer the same as under Question No. 1 In the negative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 In the negative and in favour of the assessee. Revenue to pay the costs of the reference.
-
1981 (9) TMI 53 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Firm, Partners ... ... ... ... ..... r clearly indicates that this person was employed to render services to the firm rather than to the individual partner. This case is therefore, distinguishable on facts., In the said judgment of the Madras High Court, there is a reference to several earlier cases in which deductions were permitted for expenses incurred in employing persons to look after a partner s. interest and also cases in which other deductions such as interest, etc., had been allowed on the share income. It, therefore, appears to us that possibly the entire amount could have been allowed as a deduction in the present case as was done by the AAC. At least, the Tribunal was not wrong in allowing half, the amount and the assessee has not contested the, matter any further. So, we would uphold the decision of the Tribunal and, accordingly, we would answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the department. The assessee, will get the costs. Counsel fee Rs. 250.
-
1981 (9) TMI 52 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... s of the assessee and hence allowable as revenue expenditure. In our opinion, this is predominantly a conclusion of fact to be arrived at on an assessment of all available material, and it would not be proper for the High Court to reappraise the material and come to a different conclusion. The decision of the Tribunal is also in accordance with the approach indicated in CIT v. Shah Nanji Nagsi 1979 116 ITR 292 (Bom). Accordingly, the question will have to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee, upholding the view of the Tribunal. In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows Question No. 1 In the negative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 3 In the negative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 4 Not answered for the reason already indicated, namely, that the reference itself is incompetent. Parties are directed to bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1981 (9) TMI 51 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... t to proceed on the footing of assessable profits or notional profits but must base his order upon a proper calculation and computation of the commercial and/or accounting profits. Therefore, it was opined, further, that the ITO would not be justified in considering amounts received by way of capital return and capital gains as forming part of the profits of the assessee-company while exercising its powers under s. 23A of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. The same principles must apply whilst considering a case of exercising the powers under s. 104. In the result, it cannot be said that action under s. 104 of the I.T. Act, 1961, was justified. In the result, the Tribunal was right in allowing the assessee s appeal for all the three assessment years. Accordingly, we answer the question referred to us as follows In our view, the Tribunal was right in holding that action under section 104 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was not justified. Parties to bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1981 (9) TMI 50 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... may point out that the salary income is also part of such share income). Also, a penalty has been imposed on the firm. So far as assessment year 1960-61, is concerned he had an interest in some other firm but it had resulted in a loss and, therefore, the delay in the filing of the return by the partner did not affect the tax liability on any income other than the share income, As such, the fact that there was a delay of about 2 1/2 years and 4 1/2 years in filing the returns for the assessment year 1960-61 and 1961-62, respectively, is not material. In these circumstances, we have come to the conclusion that the delay in the filing of the returns cannot be said to be without reasonable cause and, therefore, no penalty could be imposed on the present assessee for the assessment years 1960-61 and 1961-62. We, therefore, answer the questions referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1981 (9) TMI 49 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Company, Super Profits Tax ... ... ... ... ..... s of the Companies Act as well as for applying Expln. II and earning for the assessee the higher rebate of 50 per cent. We may add that the reference to the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1962, in the question appears to be incorrect, but we find that the language employed in the Finance Act, 1963, is identical to that contained in the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1962 as far as Expln. II is concerned. We, therefore, reframe the question by making this slight correction as under Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, 330 equity shares of WIMCO registered in the names of the nominees of the assessee-company could be said to have been held by the assessee-company within the meaning of that expression occurring in Explanation II of Para. D of Part II of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1963 ? In the result, the question referred to us, is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner will pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1981 (9) TMI 48 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Agricultural Land, Capital Gains, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... as such that no agriculturist would have paid the same if he wanted to purchase the land for purely agricultural purposes. The evidence on record does not show whether the sale was on acreage or yardage basis. The extract from the sale deed reproduced m the Tribunal's order shows that the land was sold as an "agricultural land". Having regard to the totality of circumstances, we are of the view that the conclusion reached by the Tribunal, after taking into account all the relevant circumstances and upon a balanced consideration of the entire evidence and on the application of the correct legal test, is just and correct. 17. In the result, the questions referred for our opinion are answered as follows Question No. 1 Answer In the affirmative, i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 Answer In the negative, i.e., against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner will pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1981 (9) TMI 47 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ... ... ... ..... va 1960 40 ITR 301 (SC), for the proposition that it is open to the Revenue to tear the veil surrounding a transaction and to come to the conclusion that it was in fact a device to conceal income. The facts of that case are, however, distinguishable. Therein, an advocate became the beneficiary of trust in consideration of conducting a case. It was, in those circumstances, held that the benefit accruing from the trust was in the nature of income belonging to the advocate. For the reasons aforementioned, I hold that the Revenue was not entitled to add an income of Rs. 5,000 per year towards the income of the company for the assessment years under reference because the bus in dispute had been transferred to Smt. Durga Devi, who had been appropriating the income of the bus to herself. Orders dated October 10, 1969, of the Commissioner, dated September 8, 1969, of the AAC and dated July 21, 1955, of the ITO, are hereby quashed. The petitions are allowed with no order as to costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 46 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Provisions Of Sch. II Of The I.T. Act, 1961 ... ... ... ... ..... cation No. 3832 of 1978 is ordered. Applications Nos. 3833 of 1978 and 952 of 1970 filed by the bank are dismissed. The applicant in Application No. 3832 of 1978 will be entitled to his costs. There will be no order as to costs in the other two applications. V. RAMASWAMI J The learned counsel for the bank sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court under art. 134A of the Constitution. We are satisfied that the following substantial questions of law of general importance do arise out of our judgment, and that, in our opinion, these questions need to be decided by the Supreme Court. 1. Whether rule 51 of Schedule II providing that attachment of immovable property relates back to notice under rule 2 of the Schedule is unreasonable and void and beyond the legislative powers of Parliament as to procedure ? 2. Whether rule 16(1) is also void, for, its effect is also to avoid transfers by the defaulter after rule 2-notice ? Accordingly we grant leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
-
1981 (9) TMI 45 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Unregistered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... , the earlier assessment of its members can be rectified under s. 155. In coming to this conclusion this court dissented from the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Ch. Atchaiah v. ITO 1979 116 ITR 675 and distinguished the decision of the Patna High Court in CIT v. Pure Nichitpur Colliery Co. 1975 101 ITR 79. Learned counsel for the applicant also stated that the Madras High Court in CIT v. Blue Mountain Engineering Corporation 1978 112 ITR 839, has also taken a view in favour of the assessee. But since the matter is directly concluded by a decision of this court and since no circumstances have been brought to our notice which would justify the reconsideration of this issue by a larger Bench of this court, we think that we should follow the earlier decision of the Division Bench in the case of Punjab Cloth Stores. Doing so, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances, however, we make no order as to costs.
....
|