|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 263 Records
-
1981 (9) TMI 44 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
No Income Liable To Tax, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... in interfering with the said finding of fact. We may incidentally point out that the Tribunal had also held that the assessee had suffered a loss of Rs. 39,763 during the previous year, that is in 1959-60, which it was entitled to carry forward and setoff against the profits in the concerned assessment year 1960-61, and if that was done, then even on the basis of the assessee s assessed income of Rs. 56,553 the assessee s income for the said assessment year would be below the taxable income of the firm. However, the said view of the Tribunal cannot be considered to be correct, in view of the decision of the Nagpur Bench of this court in the case of Ballarpur Collieries Co. v. CIT 1973 92 ITR 219. However, for the purpose of determining the question before us, the said view of the Tribunal is not relevant and unnecessary to be considered. We would, therefore, answer the re-framed question in the affirmative, and in favour of the assessee. The parties to bear their own costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 43 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Cash Credits ... ... ... ... ..... ed for the purpose of this case only. If the said documentary evidence were to be accepted, then it clearly shows that the said amount of Rs. 55,293 shown in the assessee s books of account to the credit of his wife, Ishwaribai, belonged to his said wife and did not belong to the assessee so as to be included in his income. In the result, we answer the questions as under Question No. (1) There was evidence to hold that the credit of Rs. 55,293 in the account of the assessee s wife did represent the sale proceeds of the wife s ornaments. Question No. (2) In view of our answer to question No. (1) as above, question No. (2) is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner to pay the costs of the reference, together with the costs of appeal to the Supreme Court, as they are to be added to the costs of this reference as directed by the Supreme Court in its order in Civil Appeal No. 668 of 1966 ( 1967 66 ITR 462). Bill of costs to be drawn up accordingly.
-
1981 (9) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... acquired by the assessee. He also found that the expenditure in question was incurred in the course of business carried on by them. When the matter was carried in further appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal agreed with the AAC. In its decision the Tribunal has referred to the decision of the Madras High Court in Amarjothi Pictures v. CIT 1968 69 ITR 755. Mr. Dastur also drew our attention to the decision already adverted to, namely, CIT v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. 1977 106 ITR 363 (Bom), where the amount spent by the company on the publication of the brochure at the time of its golden jubilee was also allowed as revenue expenditure. In our opinion, the Tribunal was not in any error in the view that it took and as regards this item also the finding of the Tribunal will have to be concurred with. In the result, in respect of all the three items (a), (b) and (c), question No. (2) is also answered in the affirmative and in favour of the asses Parties to bear their own costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Gift, Interest Gift, Res Judicata ... ... ... ... ..... that it was not cash but some other assets that had been transferred to the assessee. There were no other assets which could have been transferred and no such assets were pointed out to us either. From the mere fact that the total assets of the business exceeded the sum of Rs. 1 lakh (taking into account all debts due to the business, and bills receivable and so on), it does not follow that the gift made by the assessee was of the assets of the business to the tune of a sum of Rs. 1 lakh. We, therefore, agree with the view taken by the Tribunal and answer the question referred to us as follows Question No.1 in the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. Having regard to the fact that there is a mistake in the question framed, we clarify that the interest claimed was not admissible as a deduction. Question No. 2 in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The reference is disposed of accordingly. The Revenue will be, entitled to its costs (one set). Counsel s fee Rs. 350.
-
1981 (9) TMI 40 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... he basis of an audit objection and not a suo motu action. The Tribunal held on merits that the assessee was entitled to the depreciation (the validity of the orders under s. 154 and the larger question being before it) as such they could not be said to be orders prejudicial to the Revenue. The orders under s. 154 rectified the reassessment orders, the matter in issue being basically one of taxable quantum of income and not under what head of income the amount was to be assessed. The rectification permitted the depreciation allowance to be granted on the clear understanding that the particular income was liable to be and was being assessed under the residuary source. It is, therefore, clear to us that the order passed by the ITO was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the Revenue. For the reasons outlined above both the questions have to be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The asses see will be entitled to her costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 350 (one set).
-
1981 (9) TMI 39 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Super Profits Tax ... ... ... ... ..... rmination of this activity was a necessary incident of the business of the assessee or did it impair the profit-making structure. The Tribunal after considering all the circumstances appears to have come to the correct conclusion that this was not a necessary incident of the business of the assessee and that extinction and surrender of the industrial licence and the collaboration agreement did impair the profit-making structure of the assessee. If that be so, this amount of Rs. 24 lakhs paid by PAL to API as compensation must be regarded as an amount received by the assessee as a capital receipt and not as a revenue receipt. As far as question No. (1) is concerned, we are thus fully in accord with the conclusion of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. In the result, question No. (1) is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. As already stated, we refrain from giving any answer to question No. (2). The Revenue will pay the costs of the reference to the assesses.
-
1981 (9) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... he business of the bank more efficiently and fruitfully. The asset, therefore, was a capital asset and was an asset used for the purpose of the business of the assessee and, therefore, the assessee s claim under s. 10(2)(vii) should have been accepted. From what we have stated above, it would be clear that the question that arises in this reference is not whether the loss incurred by the asses see is a capital loss or a revenue loss but whether the assessee is entitled to the loss under s. 10(2)(vii) of the 1922 Act. We, therefore, reframe the question in the following manner Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to claim the loss of Rs. 67,969 incurred by the sale of the Pusa Road property as an allowance under section 10(2)(vii) of the 1922 Act ? We answer the above question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. As the assessee has succeeded, it will be entitled to the costs of this reference Counsel s fee Rs. 350.
-
1981 (9) TMI 37 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... liar arose from the holding of shares in the respective companies or is traceable to the investment by the family of its funds or whether the income is referable to the personal service rendered by him and the investment by the family. In the present case, we have already noticed that Thyagaraja Mudaliar was a person who had acquired considerable experience in running several businesses. The Tribunal had also found as a fact that the shareholding did not play a part in making him the managing director. Therefore, the remuneration received by him cannot be traced to the joint family. The fact that he happens to be the karta of the joint family cannot cloud the issue. Having regard to the particular facts in the present case, we are satisfied that the Tribunal acted properly in holding that the remuneration was liable to be assessed only in the individual hands of Thyagaraja Mudaliar. The question is accordingly answered in favour of the assessee. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 one set.
-
1981 (9) TMI 36 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... effects include wearing apparel and furniture. There is, in the process, an exception upon an exception. The exception upon exception is in relation to jewellery. Such jewellery, whether held for personal use or not, is brought, in effect, within the main part of the definition and excluded from the exception. We do not see how wearing apparel could be held for other than personal use. If the wearing apparel is merely an heirloom then it would be a capital asset. Similarly, furniture held for personal use would not be a capital asset, so that its sale cannot produce capital gains. But, jewellery is intended to be taken out of the above category. Whether it is intended for personal use or not, it would stand out of the exception and would come within the main category of movable property . The sale of jewellery would thus be sale of capital assets and the gain would be capital gain. The question is accordingly answered against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 35 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... d High Court, it was more than clear that the assessee incurred the expenditure not for the purpose of bringing into existence an enduring benefit for its business but for carrying on its business better and more efficiently. Accordingly, the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed as revenue expenditure the sum of Rs. 1,06,333 for the assessment year 1964-65 and the sum of Rs. 2,55,103 for the assessment year 1965-66. The agreement and the circumstances in the case before us are almost identical with those before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In our opinion, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has applied the proper test and the decision of the Allahabad High Court is clearly distinguishable. We are, therefore, of the opinion that in the present case the Tribunal was not in any error in upholding the assessee s contention. We answer the question accordingly as follows In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner to pay the costs of this reference to the assessee.
-
1981 (9) TMI 34 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Super Profits Tax ... ... ... ... ..... en subsequently, that is, on 8th September, 1961, and 24th October, 1961, respectively, would not make any difference to the matter as the said resolution and approval would relate back to 30th June, 1961. In that view of the matter, we are unable to accept the said finding of the Tribunal as regards the said amount of Rs. 40,00,000, set apart by the company for the second interim dividend, being a reserve. In our view, the said amount cannot be treated as reserve but could be treated only as provision for the purpose of the Super Profits Tax Act, 1963. Accordingly, we answer the question as follows As regards items Nos. 1 and 3, the answer would be in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. However, as regards item No. 2, being the amount of Rs. 40,00,000 set apart towards the proposed second interim dividend, the answer would be in the negative and against the assessee. In the circumstances, as both the parties succeed partially, the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking, Relief ... ... ... ... ..... mitted, there is no scope for deduction of the said amount under cl. (3) of the relevant rule. The learned counsel pointed out that this amount is shown as liability in the balance-sheet drawn for the new units. That is merely an internal accounting. In accountancy, when a branch balance-sheet is prepared, the amount owed to the head office would be displayed as a liability, as there is no other way of accounting for it. Merely because it is thus shown as a liability in the said balance-sheet of the new undertaking which is required to be prepared under the law for working out its profits separately, for granting the relief, it cannot be taken as borrowed monies or as debts owed by the assessee. The liability in this particular case is only for another unit of the same company. This finding would be one of fact. Therefore, there is no question of law which can be said to arise out of the Tribunal s order. The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 250.
-
1981 (9) TMI 32 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Foreign Domicile ... ... ... ... ..... or duty on the accountable person. In this view of the matter, and since the position as to the second part is fairly clear, we think it unnecessary to express any firm or definite opinion on the proper interpretation and application of the first part except to say in passing that the matter is not as simple as it appeared to the Tribunal. It may be added, however, that the argument advanced before us by Mr. Joshi does not appear to have been canvassed either before the Appellate Controller or before the Tribunal. Their attention was also not drawn to the passages from Dymond or Green on which reliance was placed. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the following manner By reason of the interpretation we have put on the latter part of s. 47 of the ED Act, 1953, it was clearly applicable to the facts of the present case, and for that reason the Tribunal was right in applying s. 47. The Department to pay the costs of the reference to the accountable person.
-
1981 (9) TMI 31 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Diversion By Overriding Title, Income ... ... ... ... ..... riod of eight years, Such is not the fact-situation in the instant case. The passages from Lindley on Partnership have no bearing, having regard to the fact that the question has to be examined from the limited view-point of taxation of income and the income-producing apparatus or asset within the meaning of the income-tax law and the meaning which must be taken to have been assigned to the word asset by the binding decision in Murlidhar s case 1966 62 ITR 323 (SC). In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows For the assessment year 1967-68 The question is answered in the affirmative, i. e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. For the assessment years 1968-69 and 1969-70 Question No. 1 Answer In the affirmative, i. e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Question No. 2 Answer In the affirmative, i. e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Commissioner shall pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1981 (9) TMI 30 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Practice, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... were one Roosi K. Mody and Mrs. Manek Burjor Cooper, being his son and daughter respectively. On the earlier occasions we had indicated to Mr. Khanna that it would be appropriate if he communicated with the said heirs, who in the other Income-tax Reference No. 104 of 1972, were represented by Mr. S. E. Dastur instructed by M/s. Smetham Byrne Lambert and Dubash. Today Mr. Khanna is not present. No amendment has been carried out in the reference. The reference is at the instance of a dead man. In the circumstances, we dismiss the reference for want of prosecution, and it will be returned with the questions unanswered. There will be no order as to the costs of the Commissioner.
-
1981 (9) TMI 29 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... ve and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 3 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Since this will enable the assessee to set off the rental income against the business losses, it appears to us unnecessary in this reference to consider whether the rental income was diverted at source by an overriding title. It may be that we might be required to go, into this aspect of the matter in the other reference, namely, Income-tax Reference No. 137 of 1972 . This is because certain material which was brought on the record in this matter does not appear to have been brought on the record before the Tribunal or before the AAC or the ITO in that matter. However, we will not express any further opinion on that reference. It is clear to us that in view of the answers given on questions Nos. 2 and 3, question No. 1 need not be answered in the present reference. Accordingly, we refrain from answering the same. The Commissioner will pay costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1981 (9) TMI 28 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Addition To Income, Burden Of Proof ... ... ... ... ..... fore us. Question No. 1 concerns the suppression for the year 1959-60. We must find that the Appellate Tribunal was not right in casting the burden of proof on the ownership of the undisclosed stock on the ITO. The facts and circumstances of the case would show that the burden of showing that the apparent tenor is not real is on the assessee. The question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In this view, questions Nos. 2 and 3 also have to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 4 concerns the assessment year 1959-60 partly and assessment year 1960-61 partly. The question is whether the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition. Question No. 4 has also to be answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We do so. A copy of this judgment, under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar, will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, as required by law.
-
1981 (9) TMI 27 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... isallowing this amount. The Tribunal has clearly failed in its duty. In our opinion, the ITO has given cogent and convincing reasons for the view he took. We are in agreement with the approach as well as the final decision of the ITO. In our opinion, the Tribunal was entirely in error in allowing this claim, and question No. 3 will have to be answered accordingly. In the result, the questions referred to us are answered as follows Question No. 1 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 3 In our opinion, the Tribunal erred in allowing the salary of Rs. 41,928 to Shyamsunder Seksaria. In our further opinion, the ITO had taken the correct view of the matter and was accordingly right in holding that it could not be allowed as a deduction either under s. 10(2)(xv) or s. 10(4A) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. In the circumstances of the case, the parties will bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1981 (9) TMI 26 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Company, Reserves, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... Rs. 2,202 in the reserve for development rebate. This is governed by a circular dated 11th January, 1971, issued by the CBDT, which circular has been noted and applied in CIT v. Otis Elevator Co. (India) Ltd. 1977 107 ITR 241. Question No. 4 is required to be answered accordingly. The amount, therefore, is required to be considered as a reserve, and the question has to be answered in favour of the assessee. The questions referred to us are accordingly answered as follows Question No. 1 The said amount of Rs. 2,08,42,527 would not constitute a reserve for the purpose of computation of capital. Question No. 2 The amount of Rs. 1,45,90,317 would not constitute a reserve for the purpose of computation of capital. Question No. 3 The provision for gratuity in the amount of Rs. 20,51,526 constitutes a reserve for the purpose of computation of capital. Question No. 4 The excess amount of Rs. 2,202 constitutes a reserve. Question No. 5 Does not arise. Parties to bear their own costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 25 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Company, Gratuity Reserve, Surtax ... ... ... ... ..... nally Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Ltd.), in which matter a reference was made to the High Court, which reference we have concluded in favour of the assessee (CIT v. Bombay Tyres International Ltd. 1983 141 ITR 710) From the fact that an identical amount was carried forward in all the three assessment years as gratuity reserve , it would appear that this was just setting apart in an ad hoc manner and without any correlation to the actual or estimated liability for the payment of gratuity. if that be so, then following our decision in CIT v. Forbes Forbes Campbell, and Co. Ltd. 1977 107 ITR 38 (Bom), we are required to hold that the sum would constitute a reserve and will be required to be included in the computation of capital on 1st January, 1962, 1st January, 1963, as also on 1st January, 1964. Accordingly, both the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Parties are directed to bear their own costs of the two references. APPENDI.
....
|
