|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 263 Records
-
1981 (9) TMI 24 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... aria. Whether it was designated as entertainment allowance or bare allowance makes no difference. The ITO ought to have directed himself to make necessary enquiries as to whether Kudilal Seksaria performed any services for the assessee-company, and he could have made disallowance under s. 10(4A) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, only after coming to the conclusion that the payment was excessive, having regard to the legitimate business needs of the company. Even this conclusion, is not to be found squarely in the order of the ITO. It is principally by reason of the failure of the ITO to make necessary enquiries and to apply his mind in the proper direction that the view of the Tribunal will be required to be upheld. 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. The Commissioner will pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1981 (9) TMI 23 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Net Wealth, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... ment to wealth-tax at all as the valuation date for the assessment year 1957-58 would be outside the operation of the Act itself. The Act, it may be remembered, was brought into force on April 1, 1957. This cannot be a proper interpretation of the provisions of the W.T. Act. We consider that just as in the I.T. Act the law relating to the assessment is the law in force as on the first date of April of the assessment year, similarly under the W.T. Act, the law in force as on the first day of the assessment year would be the law which would regulate the computation of wealth as on the valuation date. In this view it is not possible to accept the assessee s submission that the year 1963-64 also is not capable of rectification. In the result, the question referred to us is answered as follows The provisions of s. 35 of the W.T. Act could be invoked to apply the provisions of s. 5(1)(viii) as amended for the assessment years 1963-64 to 1968-69. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 22 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Bonus, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... the question and direct the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal by deciding whether there was any understanding or any adjustment or arrangement between the parties in the year in question even though formal documents might have been executed, after the expiry of the accounting year. If there was any such understanding or adjustment or agreement then the amount would be deductible. But if there was no understanding or no agreement between the parties and only a unilateral decision by the assessee itself without anything more, then in the light of the decisions there was no accrued liability of the assessee. In this light, therefore, the Tribunal should dispose of the appeal after giving the parties opportunity to adduce such evidence as the Tribunal thinks fit and proper. In the premises, we decline to answer the question and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties will pay and bear their own costs. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1981 (9) TMI 21 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
House Property ... ... ... ... ..... taxable. As we have mentioned, property income can be taxed as an income within the notion of s. 23(2) of the Act and that is the only head before the Tribunal and in that view of the matter, these observations cannot be of much assistance to the learned advocate for the Revenue. Reliance was also placed on Stroud s Judicial Dictionary as to what was the meaning of reasonable . But this is not relevant for us. Reference was also made to a decision of the House of Lords in Smart (Inspector of Taxes) v. Lincolnshire Sugar Co. Ltd. 1937 20 TC 643, and our attention was drawn to the observations of Lord Macmillan appearing at p. 671 of the report. But we are unable to find any relevance of the said finding to the facts of the case. In the view we have taken and the reasons as we have mentioned hereinbefore, both the questions referred to this court are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Parties will pay and bear their own costs. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1981 (9) TMI 20 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... CIT v. Kulu Valley Transport Co. P. Ltd. 1970 77 ITR 518. In the opinion of the Delhi High Court, the principle laid down in the said case cannot be extended to the context of s. 27l(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961. The said decision also referred to the earlier decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Chunnilal and Bros. v. CIT 1979 119 ITR 199. Following these decisions, we are of the opinion that the assessee had failed to furnish the return of his total income within the time allowed by sub-s. (1) of s. 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Mr. Mehta submits that this is a fit matter in which the Commissioner can reduce or waive the amount of penalty in his power under s. 273A and the assessee proposes to move the Commissioner for this relief. Our decision is without prejudice to the, right of the assessee to move the Commissioner and any such application will be required to be dealt with by the Commissioner on its merits. Parties, however, to bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1981 (9) TMI 19 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal, Change Of Law, Reassessment, Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... ly issued. The earlier notice issued was clearly not in order, and any assessment, reassessment or recomputation done in Pursuance of such invalid notice is required to be held as invalid, as the Tribunal has done. In the result, the two questions referred to us are answered as follows Question No. 1 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee as far as the plea earlier indicated is concerned. We are expressing no opinion on the other pleas. Question No. 2 The earlier notices issued under s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, that is, the three notices issued on 31st March, 196 , 31st March, 1965, and 10th December, 1965, respectively, were invalid because by that time the determination under s. 163 of the said Act had not properly taken place. Since these notices are invalid, the reassessment done in pursuance of them is also invalid. It is unnecessary, in our opinion, to consider the validity of the notices issued under s. 163. Parties to bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1981 (9) TMI 18 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Current Repairs ... ... ... ... ..... ture. If so, the Tribunal was right in allowing the expenditure under s. 10(2)(xv) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. Question No. 1 also will have to be answered in favour of the assessee. As regards questions Nos. 2 and 3, it is difficult to find anything to be said in favour of the Commissioner of Income-tax. These are obviously current repairs, and the Tribunal was right in allowing the same under s. 10(2)(v) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. In the result, the five questions referred to us are answered as follows Question No.1 Allowable under s. 10(2)(xv) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. In favour of the assessee. Question No. 2 Allowable under s. 10(2)(v) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. In favour of the assessee. Question No. 3 Allowable under s. 10(2)(v) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922. In favour of the assessee. Question No. 4 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Question No. 5 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be, however, no order as to costs
-
1981 (9) TMI 17 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... -B or paid in advance under Chapter XVII-C. The said Explanation, therefore, provided for a deduction from the tax of only the tax deducted at source or the tax paid in advance and not the provisional tax, as directed by the Tribunal in its order. In fact, the Tribunal provided for a deduction of the provisional tax by Correcting its original order which provided for the self-assessment tax instead. However, in view of the said Explanation, the Tribunal s order for deduction of the provisional tax cannot stand. In the circumstances, the questions would be answered as under Questions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 In the affirmative and against the assessee. Question No. 4 So far as the order of the Tribunal provides for the deduction of advance tax from the gross tax, it was justified in passing the order. However, so far as it provides for the deduction of provisional tax, the Tribunal was not justified in providing for such deduction. The parties to bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1981 (9) TMI 16 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ubject-matter of the appeal. In this case the assessee not having appealed to the AAC against the finding of the ITO disallowing development rebate to the assessee on the price of electric motors, bad accepted the same, and the AAC had, therefore, no occasion to deal with the same. The assessee, therefore, cannot be considered to be aggrieved by any decision of the AAC on the said finding of the ITO so as to entitle it to file an appeal to the Tribunal under s. 253 of the said Act, with the result that the said finding of the ITO could never be the subject-matter of the appeal before the Tribunal, whether it was taken in the grounds of appeal initially or allowed to be raised subsequently with the leave of the Tribunal. In that case the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with or pass orders in respect of the said finding of the ITO. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The assessee to pay costs of the reference.
-
1981 (9) TMI 15 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Double Taxation Relief, Refund, Relief ... ... ... ... ..... assessee is entitled to a refund along with interest up to the date of refund. According to us the said s. 214(2) was not happily worded, as although it provides the point of termination of the period for payment of interest, it does not provide for the point from which the same was to start nor does the chapter in which the said section appears contain any provision for refund. However, we propose to follow the view taken in the aforesaid decision as the same appears to us to be reasonable for if the assessee was entitled to refund, Government could not be justified in keeping the money without interest till the actual refund was made though it was liable to pay interest under s. 214(1) till the date of assessment. In the result we would answer the questions as under Question No. 1 In the affirmative and in favour of the Revenue. Question No. 2 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The Commissioner of Income-tax to pay the costs of the reference to the assessee.
-
1981 (9) TMI 14 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Diversion By Overriding Title, Income ... ... ... ... ..... upreme Court held that on the facts the tenor of the deeds showed that the profits were first to accrue to the assessee and were thereafter to be applied to the beneficiaries and that under the law of partnership it was the partners alone who were entitled to the profits. Therefore, the court held that the dispositions were in law and fact the income of the assessee. The said decision has no application to the facts of this case. Unlike in that case, in this case the right to the share in the profits of the firm had accrued to the assessee only on settlement of accounts on 31 St December, 1971, when the assessee was no longer a partner of the firm and when he had already assigned the said right to his sons. Under the circumstances, we hold that the said amount of Rs. 21,439 was not assessable in the hands of the assessee as his income. In the result, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Revenue to pay costs of the reference.
-
1981 (9) TMI 13 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Property Passing ... ... ... ... ..... the case, we make no order as to costs. Before we part with this case, we want to point out that the paper book, got printed by the applicant for being placed before us, does not contain the relevant orders of the AAC for the assessment years 1963-64, 1964-65 and 1965-66. The orders of the AAC in some penalty matter have been printed instead. Again, as already stated, the Tribunal has followed the earlier order of the Tribunal in relation to the assessment years 1963-64 and 1964-65, and neither party appears to have moved the Tribunal for annexing these relevant orders of the Tribunal as part of the case. Copies of these orders have been placed before us by counsel for the respondent and we have referred to them only for purposes of completeness. The order of the Tribunal for the assessment year in question is quite self-contained and our conclusion does not in any manner depend on the findings of fact contained in the earlier appellate orders to which we have made reference.
-
1981 (9) TMI 12 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Total Income ... ... ... ... ..... ome of the assessee under the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? It would appear to us that the answer to be given to this question is now concluded against the Department by the decision of this court in Arvind Bhogilal v. CIT 1976 105 ITR 764. After considering the decision of the Supreme Court in Amarchand s case 1963 48 ITR 59 (SC) in extenso and after understanding the same with reference to the material brought on record in the said case, the Bench answered the question referred to it in favour of the assessee. It held, on the facts of that case, that the sum of Rs. 2,61,821 derived from the firm of M/s. Bhogila Laherchand did not accrue to Arvind at any time on or before 31st August, 1950 (the date of his death) and s. 24B of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 was not attracted. Applying the law laid down in 1976 105 ITR 764 (Bom), we answer the question referred to us in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Parties to bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1981 (9) TMI 11 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Deduction, Interest On Securities ... ... ... ... ..... unciated by this court in the case of CIT v. Darbhanga Marketing Co. Ltd. 1971 80 ITR 72, the Tribunal was right in coming to its conclusion. We may incidentally point out that the decision of the Calcutta High Court on which the Tribunal has relied has been approved of and the question has been discussed threadbare by the Supreme Court in the case of Cloth Traders (P.) Ltd. v. Addl. CIT 1979 118 ITR 243. Learned advocate for the Revenue, however, drew our attention to certain observations of the court at pp. 252 and 253 of the said decision. But those observations do not, in our opinion, in any way militate against the principles followed by the Tribunal in this case. In the above premises, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal arrived at the correct decision in the facts and circumstances of the case. The question, therefore, is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties will pay and bear their own costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 10 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Developement Rebate ... ... ... ... ..... ts conclusion that it made upon the terms of the construction. We may also indicate here, as we have set out before, from the facts that the assessee had showed the machinery in question as assets in its balance-sheet while on the liabilities side the value of such machinery was reduced by the instalments paid during the years was shown as loan from the Government. It appears that it was treated that those machinery as goods owned by the assessee and it was so dealt with in the balance-sheet. It does not appear there was no contention raised that either the balancesheet was not correct or the balance-sheet contained incorrect statement. In that view of the matter and for the reasons aforesaid, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal was correct in its conclusion and the question must, therefore, 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. SUHAS CHANDRA SEN J.-I agree.
-
1981 (9) TMI 9 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... imposing penalty on the assessee. The Tribunal also observed that the assessee voluntarily offered the income for assessment. The Tribunal further considered that the AAC, throughout the body of the order, treated the assessee as a defaulter and did not invoke the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Tribunal also held that even if the Explanation was invoked, there was nothing to indicate that the assessee committed fraud or gross or wilful neglect in returning the income. On these findings, the Tribunal set aside the order imposing penalty on the assessee. The penalty has been set aside on the basis of findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal on the materials produced on record and no questions of law, as proposed by the Department, arise out of the order of the Tribunal. We, therefore, see no reason to allow these applications. These applications are, therefore, dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs of these applications.
-
1981 (9) TMI 8 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Alternate Remedy, Assessment, Delay In Filing Writ, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... as no such requirement in the agreement which had been arrived at between the petitioners on the one hand and the CBDT on the other. Apart from this it does not appear that any such question arose on any previous occasion when the release of the seized goods was made in favour of the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to obtain release of 20 boxes of silver ornaments forthwith. It is, of course, understood that from the proceeds of those boxes the petitioners will make payments towards the balance due from them. The petitions are hence allowed in part and respondents Nos. 1 and 2, that is, the Commissioner of Income-tax, Kanpur, and Commissioner, Income-tax, Agra, are directed to release 20 boxes of silver ornaments in favour of the two petitioners without insisting on the petitioners to furnish any undertaking. The release is to be made within a period of two weeks from the date of this order. In the circumstances of the case, we make no order as to costs.
-
1981 (9) TMI 6 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... attributable to the business which is closed against the income of his other businesses in that year. In view of the principles laid down in the above mentioned case, the question to be decided by the Tribunal was whether the exhibition of films in the three cinema houses constituted one single business or whether there were three independent businesses carried on by the assessee. This question has not at all been considered by the Tribunal. In our opinion, therefore, the question of allowing the aforesaid amounts as business expenditure will have to be gone into by the Tribunal after evaluating the facts in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L. M. Chhabda and Sons 1967 65 ITR 638 (SC). For the reasons stated above, we answer the questions by saying that the Tribunal will have to examine these questions again in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of L. M. Chhabda and Sons. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1981 (9) TMI 5 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Additional Super Tax, Closely Held Company, Company ... ... ... ... ..... B. C. Srinivasa Setty 1981 128 ITR 294, was rendered on February 19, 1981. But the Supreme Court decision rendered on February 19, 1981, was reported on March 23, 1981. Therefore, we did not have the advantage of the Supreme Court decision when we rendered our decision on June 9, 1980, though it was reported much later on May 25, 1981. Therefore, in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Empire jute Co. v. CIT 1980 124 ITR 1, and also in the case of CIT v. B. C. Srinivasa Setty 1981 128 ITR 294, the Tribunal had arrived at a correct conclusion. Incidentally, we must point out that the Tribunal has held as a fact that the loom hours in this case did not cost anything to the assessee. That finding of fact has not been challenged by any separate question. In the premises, the question referred to this court must, therefore, be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The parties will pay and bear their own costs. C. K. BANERJI J.-I agree.
-
1981 (9) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Control And Management Partly In India, Firm, Residence ... ... ... ... ..... ll extent, in India before it can be held that the control and management is not situated wholly without the taxable territories ........ The above passage would clearly go to show that the mere presence of the managing partner in India is not conclusive of the issue. Particularly in the context of his having delegated his powers as he was authorised to do in favour of Palaniswamy, this would be a case of actual control in Malaya and not in India. The question has to be decided in the light of the actual or the factual exercise of control. There is nothing to show that any part of the control was exercised from India and, therefore, the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the firm was not resident in India in the relevant years. No separate arguments were advanced on the question of penalty. The result is that the questions are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The assessee will be entitled to its costs, counsel s fee Rs. 500 one set.
....
|
