|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 221 to 240 of 244 Records
-
1985 (1) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Allowance, Business Expenditure, Interest On Borrowed Capital ... ... ... ... ..... e borrowed capital was invested in the construction of the house. The Tribunal cannot proceed on the presumption that investments in the house property were made out of the paid up capital and not out of the capital borrowed for the purpose of the business. The Tribunal without finding out whether investment in the construction was made out of the profits of the relevant year or out of other funds available with the assessee or out of the borrowed capital, should not have proceeded on the assumption that such investment was not made out of the monies borrowed for the running of the business but out of the paid up capital. Since the Tribunal has not brought on record the facts necessary for determining the question referred to us, we are unable to answer the question. We, therefore, decline to answer the second question. The Tribunal will dispose of the matter in the light of the observation made in the judgment. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1985 (1) TMI 23 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Finding Or Direction In Appellate Order, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the status of the assessee should be taken as firm and not as a Hindu undivided family and then the Income-tax Officer proceeded to assess the firm, then in view of Explanation 3 to section 153 of the Act, although the two assessees are two different persons, even then the assessment on the firm cannot be said to be barred by limitation. In view of my discussions above, I hold that the assessment of the firm is not barred by limitation as held by the Tribunal. 1, therefore, hold that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was not correct in law in holding that the assessment for the assessment year 1966-67 on the firm was barred by limitation. The answer to the question referred is, therefore, given in the negative and in favour of the Revenue petitioner and against the assessee-opposite party. However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. UDAY SINHA J.-I agree.
-
1985 (1) TMI 22 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Change Of Law, Delay In Filing Return, Penalty, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... returns had been filed after April 1, 1969 ? Having heard counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the questions Nos. 2 and 3 stand answered in favour of the assessee-applicant in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in CWT v. Suresh Seth 1981 129 ITR 328. In view of that decision, therefore, questions Nos. 2 and 3 deserve to be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. Counsel for the assessee made a statement before us that as questions Nos. 2 and 3 are being answered in favour of the assessee, question No. 1 may be returned unanswered, inasmuch as the amount of penalty payable will be negligible. In the result, the reference in so far as question No. 1 is concerned is returned unanswered and questions Nos. 2 and 3 are answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. A copy of this order may be sent to the Tribunal concerned for passing suitable consequential orders. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (1) TMI 21 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Failure To Disclose Fully And Truly, HUF, Notice, Previous Year, Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... n 171 of the new Act provides that the total income of the joint family in respect of the period up to the date of partition should be assessed as if no partition had taken place and the members should be held jointly and severally liable for the tax assessed on the family. Thus, it is obvious that the validity of the demand notice cannot be assailed either on the footing of the 1922 Act or of the 1961 Act. The demand notice was valid under either of the statutes. In my view, therefore, there is no substance in the contention that the demand notice was invalid nor am I prepared to hold that the so-called invalidity of the demand notice vitiated the assessment. For the reasons stated above, the answer to each of the questions referred by the Tribunal to this court must be in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Department and against the assessee. The reference is answered accordingly with costs of Rs.. 250 payable by the assessee to the Department. NAZIR AHMAD J.-I agree.
-
1985 (1) TMI 20 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Ruler, Tax Concession ... ... ... ... ..... eased to occupy the palace as official residence. Even the exemption order does not make it obligatory upon her to live in the same palace for all the time because in her case, three palaces have been declared as official residences. That apart it is not in dispute that Maharani Usha Raje is the beneficiary under the assessee-trust. Therefore, we are unable to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for the Revenue and the authorities cited by him do not apply to the facts of the present case as admittedly the assessee-trust has also been granted the exemption in the past. In the result, our answer to the question referred is as follows On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the A.L.V. of the Manik Bagh Palace was exempt from income-tax under the Part B States (Taxation Concessions) Order, 1950. The reference is thus answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (1) TMI 19 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Mistake Apparent From Record, Refund ... ... ... ... ..... and not something which would have to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. A decision on a debatable point of law cannot be termed to be a mistake apparent from the record. Assuming full credence to the submissions of Mr. Pal, it is not free from doubt in regard to the applicability of section 35 of the Act of 1922. This, view finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Brothers 1971 82 ITR 50. In that view of the matte r, the Income-tax Officer was, in my view, clearly in error in holding that power of rectification existed in his favour in regard to the order dated September 15, 1973, under section 35 of the Act of 1922. The application thus succeeds. The rule is made absolute. In the facts of this case, there will be however, no order as to costs. On an oral prayer by Mr. Rupen Mitra, operation of the order is stayed for a period of two weeks from late.
-
1985 (1) TMI 18 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... the amendment has been introduced in section 187 by adding a proviso and it has also been clearly stated that this amendment shall be deemed to have come into effect from Apri1, 197 . It is, therefore, not disputed that this amendment will be effective at the time at which the assessment in this case was being made and for the assessment period. It is also clear that as this Amendment Act came into force in October, 1984, it was not there before the Tribunal when this reference was made by the Tribunal to this court. Under these circumstances, in our opinion, it would be proper that the Tribunal considers the effect of this amendment and further consider whether any additional statement of the case is necessary. It is, therefore, directed that the Tribunal shall consider the effect of this amendment on the facts of this case and shall send an additional statement of the case. A copy of the order be given to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of necessary charges.
-
1985 (1) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cision which was rendered in the assessee s own case for the earlier years, the second question has to be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Learned counsel for the assessee makes an oral application for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court against the judgment just now rendered. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, against the decision in CIT v. Lakshmi Narayanan 1981 132 ITR 355 (Mad), the Supreme Court has granted special leave and now that this court has answered the reference in the light of the said decision, leave to appeal to the Supreme Court may be granted in this case. Having regard to the fact that the decision of this court in the abovementioned case is already the subject-matter of an appeal before the Supreme Court and as we have followed the said decision in this case, we are inclined to grant leave in this case. Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court is accordingly granted.
-
1985 (1) TMI 16 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... id property. Everything said and done and even if it is found that the valuation made by the petitioner in respect of this property was not satisfactory, even then, it would be too tenuous a material on which it can be safely assumed from the mere fact of the variation in the valuation ultimately that the petitioner lacked sufficient experience in the specified fields. In that view of the matter, we must hold that the impugned decision is vitiated on all the three grounds and, therefore, the petition should be allowed. The result is that this petition succeeds and the impugned decision of the Union Government contained in the letter of September 12, 1983, is quashed and set aside and it is directed that the Union Government shall dispose of the application of the petitioner latest by March 31, 1985, according to the correct principles of law. Rule is made absolute accordingly but having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, there should be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (1) TMI 15 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Advance Tax, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... se to its knowledge. There was no circumstance which would justify the inference that the assessee knew its estimate to be untrue. The concurrent finding of fact by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal is that there was a reasonable basis for submitting the estimate. If that be the position, the estimates could not be characterised as estimates which the assessee knew to be untrue. Having regard to the facts and circumstances as appearing from the records, we are of the view that the Tribunal rightly held that it could not be said that the assessee furnished an estimate which it knew or had reason to believe it to be untrue. Neither the approach nor the finding of the Tribunal can be said to be erroneous. In the result, the question in this reference is answered in the affirma tive and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. Leave is given to file the correct copy of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner dated May 16, 1975.
-
1985 (1) TMI 14 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Discretionary Trust, Private Trust, Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... Productivity Council on how to increase the production. They are all susceptible to modifications and alterations. For that reason, we cannot hold that the fee paid to the National Productivity Council should be regarded as an expenditure incurred for acquiring a capital asset. So is the case with the amounts paid to the Administrative Staff College and so is the case with the amounts paid to the Engineering Management and Foundry Consultants of Bangalore. In fact, on the basis of the statement of this case, it is almost impossible to say, with any degree of certainty, as to what is the advice tendered by these firms and what percentage of it is accepted and implemented and can endure indefinitely. We, therefore, answer both the questions referred to us against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, agreeing with the opinion of the Tribunal. The questions are answered accordingly holding that the expenditure incurred is revenue in nature. The Revenue shall pay the costs.
-
1985 (1) TMI 13 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Commissioner's Powers For Revision, Limitation For Completing Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... rst question, the second question, viz., whether, on the facts and in the Circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Officer was correct in including in the total income of the assessee under section 64(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the share income arising to the assessee s minor children by reason of their admission to the benefits of partnership, is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The two questions referred to us are accordingly answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. No costs. The learned counsel for the assessee asked for a certificate under section 261 of the Income-tax Act that we may certify that this is a fit case for appeal to the Supreme Court. In view of the fact that we have merely followed the plain language of the statute and the authoritative pronouncements of the Supreme Court, we cannot certify that this is a fit case to be heard and decided by the Supreme Court. The oral application is accordingly rejected.
-
1985 (1) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Travelling Expenses ... ... ... ... ..... s business in P.V.C. sheets and pipe manufacture which was undertaken in a year subsequent to the relevant assessment year. It also held that it was for the opening of a new branch of the assessee s manufacturing activities. The counsel for the assessee had brought to the notice of the Appellate Tribunal the letter dated March 28, 1972, written by the general manager of Shri Ram Chemical Industries, Quota (Kota), to the managing director of the assessee company. It was stated in the said letter that the visits of Shri N. A. Patel and U. K. Chowdhry to Japan were not undertaken to establish a new line of production as the main plant had been installed and production in small quantity had started. It appears that this factual position has not been properly appreciated by the Revenue in the same reasoning as in the case of question No. 6, this expenditure is to be allowed as revenue expenditure and is entitled to a deduction. The question is answered in favour of the assessee.
-
1985 (1) TMI 11 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose ... ... ... ... ..... is case was of a charitable nature and hence a question of law arose. However, when a particular charity has been recognised as such for several years and is carrying on the same object without any protest, it is not for the court to reopen the same point from time to time. In this case, for example, the trust has been recognised as an approved institution for a number of years. It has collected donations and has been expending the income for a particular purpose in accordance with the objects in its memorandum. No one has challenged earlier that it was a charitable institution but it is contended that the expenditure clearly made in accordance with its constitution is not a charitable expenditure. We fail to understand how this is possible. If the institution is charitable, the expenditure on one of its principal objects must also necessarily be charitable. We do not feel that we can call for a question in these circumstances and we would decline this application. No costs.
-
1985 (1) TMI 10 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Depreciation, Electrical Machinery ... ... ... ... ..... make the machinery electrical machinery , that the fact that the machinery itself did not generate the motive power may not take it out of electrical machinery and that whenever the machinery is such that in-built into it is the electrical motor, then it would be electrical machinery. In this case, as there has been no investigation on the lines suggested by this court in the above case for the purpose of determining whether the offset machinery in question falls within the entry other electrical machinery , the questions have to be returned unanswered with a direction to the Tribunal to get necessary materials from the assessee and proceed to decide the question de novo in the light of what is indicated in the judgment rendered in the above case and decide the question as to whether the offset machinery used by the assessee in his business falls within the entry other electrical machinery so as to enable him to claim depreciation at 10 . There will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (1) TMI 9 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Building, Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... inciples laid down in the said decision, this question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. The said decision is CIT v. Oil India Ltd. 1983 143 ITR 848. In the case of CIT v. Kalyani Spinning Mills Ltd. 1981 128 ITR 279 (Cal), the court was concerned with the question whether depreciation is allowable in respect of the roads within the factory compound and the compound of the residential quarters of the factory employees. After considering various decisions, this court held that the roads within the factory compound form part of the building which is used for the purpose of business and as such are entitled to depreciation. In that case, the court was, however, not concerned with drains and culverts. Since, for the assessment year 1969-70, this court held that the depreciation is admissible on drains, culverts and roads, the question in this reference also must be answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (1) TMI 8 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
HUF As Partner, Partnership ... ... ... ... ..... in Gulraj Poonamchand v. CIT 1984 148 ITR 326. In the above case, it was held that it is permissible for the karta of a Hindu undivided family, representing the Hindu undivided family, to enter into a partnership with any other member of the Hindu undivided family, or any stranger who is taken in partnership even as working partner and even if they did not contribute any separate or individual property of their own. We agree with the view taken in Gulraj Poonamchand v. CIT 1984 148 ITR 326 (Raj). In view of these circumstances, the question referred to above is answered in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs as nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee.
-
1985 (1) TMI 7 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Capital Gains, Exemptions, House Property ... ... ... ... ..... ction like section 10 of the Act which has been enacted for the enforcement of taxing provisions, can only be said to be arbitrary on the ground of procedural despotism or the imposition of excessive punishment. Section 10 cannot be faulted for those grounds. It imposes no absolute penalty. Reasonable cause for failure to make compulsory deposit in full or in time is acceptable to section 10. It also provides for notice and a hearing before imposition of penalty. Therefore, it does not appear to be excessive. The decisions in Ved Vyas Chowla v. ITO 1965 57 ITR 749 (All) and Visalakshi v. ITO 1968 67 ITR 150 (Mys) had upheld the then existing compulsory deposit scheme of the year 1963. So long as the validity of imposition of compulsory deposit is upheld, we cannot hold that the machinery provided by section 10 is unconstitutional. Therefore, we need make no reference to these decisions. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, no costs.
-
1985 (1) TMI 6 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Discretionary Trust, Private Trust, Representative Assessee ... ... ... ... ..... dited in their accounts and for these years, the share should be taken as clearly known and determinate. We find no force in this argument. The nature and character of the trust deed have to be determined as a whole by taking the entire provisions of the trust deed and once it is held that it was a discretionary trust and the shares of the beneficiaries were not known and determinate, it cannot be decided in a different manner for any particular assessment year. So far as the question of taking action under section 263 of the Act by the Commissioner is concerned, adequate reasons have been given by the Commissioner that there was loss of revenue and, as such, the Commissioner had jurisdiction to take action under section 263 of the Act. Thus, in our view, the Tribunal has correctly decided the questions of law raised before it. In the result, all the legal questions referred to above are decided in the affirmative and against the assessee. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (1) TMI 5 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Question Of Law ... ... ... ... ..... The closing stock was valued at cost or market price, whichever was lesser. It is urged by learned counsel that the closing stock should have been valued at the market rate as on June 30, 1972. On the other hand, the method of making up of accounts is to carry the closing stock of one year into the next year as the opening stock. It so happens that the price of levy sugar, which is fixed by the Government, altered from Rs. 145 per quintal, on June 30, 1972, to Rs. 135.55 per quintal, on July 1, 1972. If the higher price was shown for the closing stock, it would be an overestimate for the following year. So, we agree that the Tribunal has correctly allowed the closing stock to be valued at Rs. 135.55 per quintal, because this stock could not have been sold at price higher than Rs. 135.55 per quintal, after June 30, 1972. We would accordingly hold that neither question requires to be referred to this court and dismiss the application. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.
....
|
