|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 255 of 255 Records
-
1984 (8) TMI 15 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... llate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal was of the opinion that in its earlier order it had observed that if the aforesaid three facts are proved, then section 80J(4) would also be satisfied as regards the new industrial undertaking. We have carefully examined both the orders of the Tribunal. The first order of the Tribunal, gives us an impression that it is not open to the Incometax Officer to examine the requirement of section 80J(4), if the other necessary facts are found in favour of the assessee. If the other necessary facts are proved in favour of the assessee, the Tribunal appears to have held that section 80J(4) would also be satisfied and the assessee would be entitled to the relief under section 80J. The language used in the first order might not be precise or unambiguous, but the author of that order understands it in that sense and, therefore, it would be better to accept that view. We, therefore, answer the question in the affirmative and against the Revenue.
-
1984 (8) TMI 14 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Deduction, Interest On Borrowed Capital, Money Lending, Other Sources, Special Deduction
-
1984 (8) TMI 13 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Bad Debt, Deduction, Interest On Borrowed Capital, Money Lending, Other Sources, Special Deduction
-
1984 (8) TMI 12 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... . The question as to whether rule 6DD(j) of the Rules applies or not has been duly considered on facts both by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as well as by the Tribunal. There is no infirmity in the findings arrived at by the Tribunal, nor do the findings of fact suffer from any perversity. Both the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal have held that the payments could not be made either by crossed cheques drawn on a bank or by crossed bank drafts, because of exceptional or unavoidable circumstances and the payment in the manner aforesaid was not practicable. The assessee had also furnished evidence to the satisfaction of the appellate authorities with regard to genuineness of the payments and the identity of the payees. Therefore, I entirely agree that rule 6DD(j) of the Rules was rightly applied by both the appellate authorities and it warrants no interference by this court. The first question has become purely academic and needs no answer by this court.
-
1984 (8) TMI 11 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income From House Property, Income From Vacant Land ... ... ... ... ..... from the net wealth of the assessee. Answering the question, the decision in R. C. No. 59 of 1976 was referred. It was held that the amount of Rs. 23.5 lakhs would cease to be an asset of the Nizam and, therefore, it was not available for inclusion in the net wealth of the Nizam. The judgment of the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Motilal Ramswaroop 1970 76 ITR 43 was approved and followed and it was held Once the wealth goes out of the hands of the assessee, that wealth including the interest accrued thereon, would not be available for assessment of either wealth-tax or income-tax in the hands of the assessee .. . The ratio in the above case is apposite for application in the facts of the instant case. Following the above case, we hold that the income from Rockland house cannot be taxed in the hands of the assessee. The income of ground rent as respects 5 acres of land also cannot be taxed as the assessee ceased to hold the land. The answer is against the Revenue. No costs.
-
1984 (8) TMI 10 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... under Reference Application No. 111 of 1972-73 . Question No. 1 .- Affirmative. The Tribunal was right in holding that the tax was paid by the assessee under the provisions of Part B of Chapter XVII and further that the assessee was entitled to deduction of interest amounting to Rs. 2,36,007. Questions Nos. 2 and 3.- Need not be answered in view of the answer given to question No. 1. Reference Application No. 116 of 1972-73 Question No. 1 .- Negative. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not justified in disallowing the expenditure of Rs. 2,26,794 and Rs. 19,126 incurred before February 7, 1984, from the total income for the assessment year 1966-67. Question No. 2 Affirmative. The furniture used for boarding and lodging constitutes furniture used for a boarding house in which depreciation was allowable as per the Rules at the rate of 15 per cent. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the parties are ordered to bear their own costs.
-
1984 (8) TMI 9 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Income Tax Concession, New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... rred to this court for its opinion is concluded by the decision of this court dated July 17, 1984, rendered in R.C. No. 247 of 1978 (CIT v. Warner Hindustan Ltd. see below). Following the said decision, the question is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. We, however, make no order as to costs.
-
1984 (8) TMI 8 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Deduction U/S 80J, Depreciation, New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... sense, did not have full legal title to the vehicle. Yet, depreciation was allowed in that case though the discussion is more relevant to movable property. The reasoning was followed by the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Steelcrete P. Ltd. 1983 142 ITR 45, and applied to machinery. The Allahabad High Court in Addl. CIT v. U. P. State Agro Industrial Corporation 1981 127 ITR 97, decided the question in respect of immovable property and permitted depreciation. The Delhi High Court, however, took a contrary view in CIT v. Hindustan Cold Storage and Refrigeration P. Ltd. 1976 103 ITR 455. In this regard, it is not necessary to reiterate what was stated in the case of a motor vehicle by this court in S. P. B. P. Sri Rangacharyulu v. CIT 1965 58 ITR 95, as we adopt the reasoning and apply it even to the land and building in question. We answer the third question in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee. Thus, the above four questions are answered as indicated above. No costs.
-
1984 (8) TMI 7 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Accrual, Income ... ... ... ... ..... n in rejecting the above submission. Having heard counsel on both sides, we have come to the conclusion that the Tribunal has not considered the question involved in the case in the right perspective. The very approach made by the Tribunal to the issue involved is erroneous. The materials now available on record would not justify the approach made by the Tribunal. In the view we have taken, we decline to answer the question. The matter, therefore, is remitted to the Tribunal and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the appeals taking into account the materials and evidence already on record and in the light of the observations in the judgment. The various authorities cited at the bar by counsel on both sides are not dealt with in view of the fact that we are remanding the cases to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the High Court and the signature of the Registrar shall be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1984 (8) TMI 6 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... d counsel who represented the assessee knew very well as to what course of action is to be adopted. We have read the above extracted portion in the context of other facts and are satisfied that, as a question of fact, it was held that the payment was made to the French company towards the supply of plant and machinery and in that sense, it was capital expenditure and was not paid to the creditor to discharge the debt due by the assessee to the German firm. Therefore, the first question obviously has to be answered in the affirmative, i.e., that it is a capital expenditure which is incurred by the assessee for acquisition of plant and machinery. This is recorded against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. Having regard to the answer to question No. 1, the second question need not be answered. However, we record that the above amount of Rs. 10,558 cannot be calculated as admissible depreciation. The two questions are answered accordingly. We order no costs in this case.
-
1984 (8) TMI 5 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Assessee, Company Establishing New Unit ... ... ... ... ..... f the two factories at Naini was conducted from Indian Telephone Industries Ltd., Bangalore. The production of these two units would be the production of Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. with headquarters at Bangalore only. Looking to all these facts, in our opinion, the factories are nothing but a branch of the assessee even though for purposes of relief as a new industrial undertaking, it can be treated as separate units, but it cannot be said that it was a new business altogether. The expenditure claimed by the assessee would, therefore, be allowable as revenue expenses. We, therefore, reverse the orders of the authorities below in this regard and direct the allowance of the expenses claimed in toto. It will be seen from the above finding recorded by the Tribunal that the establishment at Naini is not an independent unit but just an expansion of the existing business. In view of this finding of fact, we answer the question in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.
-
1984 (8) TMI 4 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Offences And Prosecution ... ... ... ... ..... onferred on it under section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and forward the same to the police for a parallel investigation. Such a procedure will result in conflicting conclusions and nullify the investigation made by the income-tax authorities. When a criminal complaint is filed by a public servant acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty or by a court under section 200(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate has to proceed only under section 204 of the Code, as rightly contended by learned counsel for the petitioner. The learned public prosecutor has also conceded this position of law. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order of the Chief judicial Magistrate-in-charge, Tiruchi, forwarding the complaint to the police for investigation is set aside, the complaint is withdrawn from the police and the Chief judicial Magistrate is directed to proceed with the complaint under section 204 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
-
1984 (8) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT
SC directed appellant company to pay lumsum to dismissed workman towards compensation for back wages, and future wages in lieu of reinvestment - held that workman is entitled to claim relief u/s 89
-
1984 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT
The expression `annual value` is a notional figure and it does not refer to any actual receipt - assessee should have actually paid the amount of tax in question before such deduction is claimed - Tribunal was right in holding that the full taxes levied by the Corporation of Rs. 1,78,784 should be deducted under section 23(1) - Petition by revenue is dismissed
-
1984 (8) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT
Whether prosecutions for offences punishable under s. 276C and s. 277 of the Act and under ss. 193 and 196 of the Indian Penal Code instituted by the Department while the reassessment proceedings under the Act are pending are liable to be quashed on the ground that they were not maintainable - Held, no - HC was right in refusing to quash the prosecution proceeding.
....
|
