|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 148 of 148 Records
-
1982 (10) TMI 8 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... nty-five thousand rupees, the Income-tax Officer shall refer the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who shall, for the purpose, have all the powers conferred under this Chapter for the imposition of penalty. This provision empowers the IAC with all the powers in this chapter for imposition of penalty and it is, therefore, plain that if the reference made by the ITO was valid on the date on which it was made, by subsequent reduction of the amount of concealed income, it could not be said that the IAC will cease to have jurisdiction to proceed with the proceedings of penalty. In our opinion, therefore, the IAC had jurisdiction in this case to levy the penalty as was done. In the light of the discussion above, therefore, our answers to the two questions are (1) That the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, is attracted and (2) The IAC has jurisdiction to levy the penalty. As nobody appeared for the assessee, parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1982 (10) TMI 7 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... in shares where one of the minors attained majority. In our opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that when Prakashchandra and Subhashchandra became majors and thus partners in the firm, there was change in the shares of the partners as evidenced by the instrument of partnership within the meaning of proviso (1) to s.184(7) and the assessee was not entitled to continuation of registration. We respectfully agree with the aforesaid observations. It was urged that an erroneous order granting continuation of registration would not be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to take any action under s. 263 of the Act. But the question of Jurisdiction of the Commissioner was not raised before the Tribunal. We, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion in that behalf. Therefore, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the negative and against the assessee. Parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1982 (10) TMI 6 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
HUF, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... he ,Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the interest of Shri Champalal in the bigger HUF devolved on the assessee-HUF on account of the fact that the coparceners of the assessee-HUF happened to be the only surviving coparceners of the bigger HUF. As a result of this devolution, the property in question, that is Baghana House , became the property of the assessee-HUF. The question of partition and the applicability of s. 20 of the W.T. Act, 1957, did not arise in the instant case. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in holding that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, after the death of Shri Champalal on May 28, 1971, the interest of Shri Champalal in the bigger HUF devolved by survivorship on the smaller HUF, without there being an order under s. 20 of the Act. For all these reasons, our answer to the question referred to this court is in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1982 (10) TMI 5 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... year 1975-76. The learned counsel for the assessee contended that the amount was written off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee for that previous year of the assessee and, therefore, the provisions of s. 155(6) of the Act applied and the ITO ought to have proceeded accordingly. This contention cannot be upheld because, firstly, this is beyond the scope of the question referred to us and, secondly, because as a fact it has been found that the amount cannot be said to be a bad debt and is not a revenue loss but a capital loss. On the finding recorded by the Appellate Tribunal we are of the opinion that it did not commit any error of law in holding that the assessee could not be allowed the amount of Rs. 20,390 as revenue loss during the assessment year 1975-76. As a result of the discussion aforesaid, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. In the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs of this reference.
-
1982 (10) TMI 4 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ble on the language of s. 275, yet could not contend that a question of law does not arise. It is, therefore, apparent as to whether such proceedings for imposition of penalty if received by the IAC from the Tribunal, the limitation provided in s. 275 would be applicable or not is apparently a question of law and for that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the application. It is, therefore, directed that so far as the first question is concerned, it is a question of fact for which no reference is called for. But so far as the second question, viz. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal was correct in law in not remanding the case back to the IAC as the time-limit to impose penalty under s. 271(1)(c) had already expired ? Is concerned, it is a question of law and the Appellate Tribunal is, therefore, directed to make a reference for answering this question. In the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs.
-
1982 (10) TMI 3 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... to non-residents. To give effect to this doctrine, by s. 6(5), the statute has provided that where an assessee has got different sources of income and if he is a resident in the previous year with reference to one source of income, he should be deemed to be a resident with reference to all sources of income. This statutory object cannot be nullified by stating that the assessee s previous year in relation to other sources of income cannot be altered by the application of s. 6(5). When the statute with an avowed object has brought in a deeming provision to make a person resident for one source of income as a resident for all sources of income, then the deeming provision cannot be ignored by stating that he is not resident in respect of the other sources of income. In this view of the matter, we have to answer the questions referred to us in both the cases in the negative and against the assessee. The assessee will pay the costs of the Revenue. Counsel s fee Rs. 500 (one set).
-
1982 (10) TMI 2 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Banking Company, Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... n on the Malaysian assets on a proportionate basis, the assessing authority is not justified in withdrawing the benefit merely on the basis that item-wise particulars have not been furnished. We are inclined to agree with the view taken by the AAC and the Tribunal on this aspect of the case. Thus, the second question referred in T.C. Nos. 857 and 858 of 1979 is answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The first question in T.C. No. 626 of 1977, as to whether the Malaysian branch had vested with the corresponding bank and whether the compensation awarded only relates to Indian assets does not arise for consideration now as it has been conceded by the learned counsel for the assessee that the Malaysian assets have also vested with the corresponding bank as a result of the acquisition. Therefore, it is unnecessary to answer the said question. This question is, therefore, unanswered. The tax cases are ordered accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1982 (10) TMI 1 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate, Transfer ... ... ... ... ..... was nothing else in this case excepting to have to resort to section 2(47), then we should have differed not only from the reasoning of the Tribunal, but also from the Tribunal s ultimate conclusion. However, in view of our construction of section 155(5), on its own terms, and in view of our decision that the take-over of the assessee s sole proprietary business assets by the partnership firm involves a transfer of machinery which formed part of these assets, we sustain the Tribunal s conclusion while repudiating almost the entirety of their reasoned judgment. The question of law for our decision has been formulated in the following terms Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in confirming the disallowance of development rebate for the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 ? Our answer to the question is in the affirmative and against the assessee. The Department will have its costs. Counsel s for Rs. 500 (one set).
....
|
