Case Laws |
Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1984 1984 (4) This
|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 224 of 224 Records
-
1984 (4) TMI 5
... ... ... ... ..... l assets or profits and gains of business depends in no way upon what may be the nature of the asset in fact or in law. The determining factor is the nature of the trade in which the asset is employed See Golden House Shoe, (New) Ltd v, Thurgood (H. M Inspector of Taxes) 1933 118 TC 280 (CA). See also Van Don Berghs Limited v. Clark (H. M Inspector of Taxes) 1935 19 TC 390 (HL) . The import entitlement permits import of goods. It confers a right, which is capable of being valued in money and arises directly in the course Of business. By no stretch of imagination can it be regarded as or representing capital asset within the meaning of s. 2(14). The sale of this right has given rise to profits or gains or benefits taxable under section 28, The Commissioner of Income-tax, has, therefore, rightly upheld the addition of the amount in question as part of the total income of the assessee The original petition is accordingly dismissed. I do not, however, make any order as to costs.
-
1984 (4) TMI 4
... ... ... ... ..... ct in preference to the view taken by the Division Bench of this court. Therefore, following the decision in Mahendra Kumar Iswarlal and Co. v. Union of India 1974 94 ITR 65 (Mad), this writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. The learned counsel for the petitioner makes an oral application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment just now pronounced. But having regard to the fact that this court has taken a uniform view as to the constitutional validity of section 139(8) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the said view of this court having been accepted by other High Courts except the Karnataka High Court and as already the decision of the Karnataka High Court which has taken a different view is the subject-matter of an appeal before the Supreme Court, we do not feel that this is a fit case for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We, therefore, reject the oral application for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
-
1984 (4) TMI 3
Search And Seizure, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... eized goods did not belong to the person from whom they were seized, it would be open to him to take proceedings under section 132(5) against the third party who made the claim instead of the person from whom the goods were seized. The principle laid down in this case would be applicable where the Income-tax Officer was prima facie of the view that it did not belong to the person from whom the goods were seized. In that event, he should proceed under section 132(7) against the person who claimed to be its owner, but, in the present case, the facts are otherwise. These decisions, therefore, are distinguishable. Having taken into consideration the circumstances of the case, we are not satisfied that this is a fit case for interference in exercise of the powers of this court under article 226 of the Constitution when the petitioner had adequate alternative remedy under the statute. For the reasons indicated above, this petition must fail and is accordingly dismissed with costs.
-
1984 (4) TMI 2
... ... ... ... ..... . With respect to the first order of the Tribunal, the Department came to this court and got the following question referred Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 20,000 as the assessee s income from undisclosed sources and in allowing the interest claim of Rs. 1,318 on the same? The case was registered as Tax Case No. 95 of 1973. It has been finally decided on 23rd April, 1984, and the High Court has given its opinion against the Department (Addl. CIT v. Bahri Bros. P. Ltd. 1985 1.54 ITR 244 (Pat)). The Tribunal was right in the present case in holding that since the penalty imposed was based on the earlier assessment order, the second proceeding also must be decided in favour of the assessee. Mr. Sharan, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, fairly conceded that he cannot now urge otherwise. For the reasons mentioned above, the question is decided in the affirmative, i.e., against the Department.
....
|
|