Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 211 of 211 Records
-
1985 (10) TMI 11
Accounting, Bad Debt, Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... contractors, the amount of carting bills for services rendered by the contractors was expected to be adjusted and the balance carried forward from year to year. The genuineness of the payments made to the transport contractors is not doubted. The transport contractors to whom the advances were made appeared to have disappeared and hence the assessee was not able to adjust the amount against their carting bills. Since the whereabouts of the contractors were unknown over a period, the assessee was constrained to write off the debt due from those transport contractors and it is this amount of Rs. 21,477 so written off that the assessee claimed by way of bad debt. Once the facts are not in dispute and the genuineness of the transaction is not suspected, the question is essentially one of fact and, therefore, in our view, the Tribunal was justified in not referring the same for this court s opinion. We, therefore, reject this application. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (10) TMI 10
Deduction, Estate Duty, Exemptions ... ... ... ... ..... basis of which exemption under clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 9 of the Act is claimed is not firmly established, we think the Tribunal was justified in refusing the exemption. We must, therefore, answer the first question in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. So far as the second question is concerned, it is covered by this court s decision in Shantaben Narottamdas v. CED 1978 111 ITR 365. We must, therefore, answer the second question in the negative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Mr. Talati states that the point covered by question No. 2 is pending before the Supreme Court in a matter carried from the decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. It would be open to the accountable person to move the authorities if the Supreme Court takes a view different from the view taken by this court in Shantaben s case 1978 111 ITR 365. The reference stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (10) TMI 9
Burden Of Proof, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... d that the difference between the returned income and the assessed income is more than 20 , a presumption of concealment or wilful furnishing of inaccurate particulars arises against the assessee and unless that presumption is rebutted, the Revenue would be entitled to levy penalty in accordance with the said provision. It is not necessary for us to analyse the relevant provisions in detail because the ratio in Suleman Abdul Sattar s case 1983 139 ITR 8 (Guj) must squarely apply in the facts and circumstances of this case. To put it straight, we are of the view that the decision in this case must turn on the ratio of Suleman Abdul Sattar s case 1983 139 ITR 8 (Guj) as the facts are by and large identical. For the above reasons, we answer both the questions in the negative, that is, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. In view of what we have stated earlier, we pass no orders on I. T. A. No. 72 of 1977. Reference is disposed accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (10) TMI 8
Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... 1982 134 ITR 234 (MP), CIT v. Navalmal Punamchand 1982 135 ITR 801 (MP), CIT v. Rajkumar Mills Ltd. 1982 135 ITR 811 (MP) and Nava Bharat Enterprises (P.) Ltd. v. CIT 1983 143 ITR 804 (AP). It was also submitted that the Bombay High Court had decided the same matter in Income-tax Appeal No. 30 of 1978 on June 13, 1978, in CIT v. Allied Publishers (P.) Ltd. A special leave to appeal against the judgment of the Bombay High Court was dismissed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court on October 13, 1979 in SLP (Civil) No. 3781 of 1978. We have gone through the judgments referred to above by Mr. Ranka and we agree with the view taken in the aforesaid decisions. Mr. Surolia, learned counsel for the Revenue, was unable to cite any authority taking a view contrary to the authorities cited above. In the result, both the above questions of law are answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.
-
1985 (10) TMI 7
S.80-O., Technical Fee Received Through Government Agency ... ... ... ... ..... ct of section 80-0 is to encourage the export of Indian technical know-how and augmentation of foreign exchange resources of the country. Bearing in mind the object, the agreement in question fulfilled the objectives for which section 80-0 was enacted and hence it should be held as covered by section 80-0. The learned judge in that case on facts came to the conclusion that the agreement in question there complied with the conditions of section 80-0. In the present case, there is nothing in section 80-0 which requires that the agreement should necessarily be between the assessee and the foreign party. If the conditions set out in section 80-0 are fulfilled, the agreement would qualify for approval by the Board. The agreement dated February 5, 1976, for the reasons set out above, qualifies for such approval. In the premises, the petition is allowed and the rule is made absolute in terms of prayers (a) and (b). The respondents to pay to the petitioner the costs of the petition.
-
1985 (10) TMI 6
Estate Duty ... ... ... ... ..... 1980 124 ITR 443. It also appears to us that even if an order under section 70 of the Act had been made in time, interest would only be payable on an amount of Rs. 50,467-95 at the rate of 4 on and from February 27, 1959, till March 31, 1964, on the reducing principal. The amount would be less than what is being claimed by the authorities and would not exceed Rs. 2,000. We also take note of the fact that the estate duty authorities have withheld the refund of Rs. 16,230-05 from 1966 and only after an order was passed in Matter No. 649 of 1968, the refund was made. We do not see any reason to differ from the view taken by this court in Prem Nath Khandelwal s case 1970 77 ITR 949. In any event, the amount in dispute being insignificant, we do not see any reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal in the facts and circumstances. We dispose of the appeal by affirming the judgment and order of the first court without any order as to costs. G. N. RAY J.-I agree.
-
1985 (10) TMI 5
Deduction, Financial Corporation ... ... ... ... ..... tna High Court consisting of Untwalia C.J. (as his Lordship then was) and S.K. Jha J. examining the scope and ambit of section 36(1)(Viii) as it stood prior to its amendment by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1967, set out at pages 521 and 522 of that report, accepted a similar claim of the assessee. In reaching that conclusion, the court also relied on the later amendment made to section 36(1)(viii) of the Act. We are of the view that the construction placed by their Lordships in this case, for the various reasons set out by us earlier, with respect, is not sound. With respect, we regret our inability to subscribe to the views expressed by their Lordships in this case. On the foregoing discussion, we hold that the question referred to us has to be answered in the affirmative. We, therefore, answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. But, in the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (10) TMI 4
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the difference between Rs. 2,09,920.88 and the amount that had been allowed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was a business expenditure incurred by the assessee in the relevant previous year and in allowing the same as a deductible expenditure - High Court is right in answering the question referred to it in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee
-
1985 (10) TMI 3
Held that excess amount received due to devaluation of Indian Rupee by realisation of cheques, drafts, bills etc., abroad is taxable as revenue receipt
-
1985 (10) TMI 2
Assessee claimed gratuity liability without fulfilling the conditions laid out in s. 40A(7) - submission of the assessee that if no provision is made by the assessee for gratuity, still the same will be deductible and section 40A(7) will have no application, would defeat the very purpose and object of section 40A(7) and render it nugatory - held that for gratuity to be deductible, the conditions laid down in s.40A(7) had to be fulfilled
-
1985 (10) TMI 1
Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the right or interest of an assessee in an annuity policy is exempt from wealth-tax under section 5(1)(vi) - Held, yes
....
|