|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 168 Records
-
1985 (11) TMI 48 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... y in filing the application was properly explained and the application for registration ought to have been duly considered on merits in terms of section 185 and the status determined accordingly before the assessment was finalised. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against the order of assessment on the merits was incompetent. In so saying, we find support in ITO v. Vinod Krishna Som Prakash 1979 117 ITR 594 (All). We answer question No. 2 in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the light of what we have stated, we do not find it necessary to answer question No. 1. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in these tax referred cases. 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.
-
1985 (11) TMI 47 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... ve proviso to sub-section (2) of section 187 is that section 187(2)(a) shall not apply to a case like the present where the firm is dissolved on the death of any of its partners under the general law of partnership in the absence of a contract to the contrary. This being so, it is a case of succession governed by section 188 on account of the fact that applicability of section 187 is excluded by virtue of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 187. No doubt the view taken by the Tribunal was prior to the aforesaid amendment in section 187(2) when the construction of section 187 was required to be made in the manner indicated by the aforesaid Full Bench decision but the consequence of the retrospective amendment in section 187(2) is that the Tribunal s view has now to be held as justified. Consequently, the reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by answering both the aforesaid questions in the affirmative. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (11) TMI 46 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
"Being" In S. 35D(2)(c)(iv), Amortisation, Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure, New Industrial Undertaking, Preliminary Expenses
-
1985 (11) TMI 45 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
"Being" In S. 35D(2)(c)(iv), Amortisation, Business Expenditure, Entertainment Expenditure, New Industrial Undertaking, Preliminary Expenses
-
1985 (11) TMI 44 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Gratui ... ... ... ... ..... of Shivji Ram, becoming a partner with her father-in-law in the partnership firm and the investment of the amount transferred to her by way of gifts by her father-in-law. This is a finding of fact and this finding of fact has not been shown to have been vitiated by non-consideration of the material on record or that it has been arrived at by extraneous considerations, or is so unreasonable that no reasonable man could have arrived at it. Under section 256 of the Act, only questions of law which arise out of the order of Tribunal can be referred and as the finding recorded by the Tribunal in this regard is a finding of fact, the Tribunal was justified in not referring this question. For the reasons aforesaid, the order of the Tribunal rejecting the reference application under section 256(1) by its order dated September 29, 1983, is correct inasmuch as no referable question of law arises out of the Tribunal s order. The application under section 256(2) of the Act is dismissed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 43 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... cited, we are of the opinion that the authorities cited on behalf of the Revenue are distinguishable there being no dispute that the subsidy is given on the basis of a particular scheme for a specified period in respect of the industries situated in backward areas only, obviously the same is given by way of an incentive for capital investment and not by way of addition to the profit of the assessee as is clear from the facts and circumstances of the case as found by the Tribunal. In this situation, in our opinion, the reference has to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Department. We are, therefore, of the opinion that, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the additions of Rs. 24,481 and Rs. 66,990 made by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment years 1979-80 and 1980-81, respectively, being sales tax subsidy received by the assessee. The reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (11) TMI 42 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Representative Assessee, Trusts ... ... ... ... ..... mined on the last day of the accounting year in which the income is received. In the instant case, on the last day of the relevant accounting years, the employees who were eligible to obtain gratuity under the indenture and their share thereof was determinable. The assessees, as a representative assessee, must, therefore, be assessed not under the provisions of section 164 but under the provisions of section 161. The Tribunal, we find, was right in having so held, although for reasons which are somewhat different. We do not agree with the Tribunal s view that each and every employee is interested in the gratuity fund , if the Tribunal meant by this that all employees of the Mills were beneficiaries under the indenture. We answer the questions thus Question No. 1 In the negative. Question No. 2 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessees. Question No. 3 In the affirmative and in favour of the assessees. The Revenue shall pay to the assessees the costs of the references.
-
1985 (11) TMI 41 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... easons stated above, I refuse to answer question No. 1 in view of concession of Mr. Vyas that the order of the Income-tax Officer was not harmful to the assessee. The Tribunal and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner will direct the Income-tax Officer to proceed to calculate on the basis of the order passed by the Income-tax Officer. The second question referred to us is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The Tribunal was correct in holding that the claim for development rebate had to be quantified in the year under consideration to carry forward the claim to the succeeding years although no reserve had been created as contemplated by section 34 of the Income-tax Act The reference is thus answered, with costs payable by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Patna, to the assessee. Hearing fee Rs. 250. Let a copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in terms of section 260 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. NAZIR AHMAD J. -I agree.
-
1985 (11) TMI 40 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Assessment, Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... en by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner. Section 153(1)(a), Explanation 1(iv), provides for exclusion of the period commencing from the date on which the Income-tax Officer forwards the draft to the assessee and ending with the date on which the Incometax Officer receives the directions from the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under section 144B of the Act subject to a maximum of 180 days. These provisions are obviously procedural in nature. The first question has, therefore, to be answered accordingly. Consequently, the reference is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue as under (i) Order No. 1 The Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of sections 144B and 153 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, are procedural in nature. (ii) Order No. 2 The Tribunal was justified in holding that the assessment order dated September 6, 1978, was passed within the prescribed period of limitation and was, therefore, valid. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (11) TMI 39 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... ncomes of Curious House, Udaipur, Birdhichand Pannalal and Birdhi Chand and Sons, were not includible as part of the income of the assessee, Shri Birdhichand, karta of M/s. Birdhi Chand Pannalal. It follows, therefore, that in view of the aforesaid findings, the Tribunal was right in holding that the income of M/s. Birdhichand Pannalal, Birdhichand and Sons and M/s. Curious House, and the income earned by Sarva Shri Onkarmal and Narainlal, unseparated coparceners of the Hindu undivided family for the properties acquired out of Hindu undivided family funds were not includible as part of the income of the assessee, Shri Birdhichand, karta of Birdhichand Pannalal. The question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs of this reference. Let the Tribunal be informed of this order in accordance with section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
-
1985 (11) TMI 38 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Firm ... ... ... ... ..... ipur, Birdhi Chand Pannalal and Birdhi Chand and Sons, were not includible as part of the income of the assessee, Shri Birdhichand, karta of M/s. Bridhi Chand Pannalal. So far as question No. 3 is concerned, Mr. Rajesh Balia, learned counsel for the assessee states that in view of the answer given to questions Nos. 1 and 2, it is not necessary to answer question No. 3 and, therefore, submits that this question need not be answered. Mr. B. R. Arora, learned counsel for the Revenue, is agreeable to this. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the parties, we do not consider it necessary to answer question No. 3. Questions Nos. 1 and 2 referred to us are, thus, answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs of this reference. Let the Tribunal be informed of this order in accordance with section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (No. XLIII of 1961).
-
1985 (11) TMI 37 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Cash Payments, Directors, Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... hough they had not contributed any separate or individual property of their own. We respectfully follow Gulraj Poonamchand s case 1984 148 ITR 326 (Raj). It follows from this, that Birdhichand, who was the karta of the Hindu undivided family at the relevant time, could take his son/s as partner/s despite that his son/s as partners had not contributed anything by way of capital out of his self-acquired funds. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the Tribunal was right when it reached the conclusion that the registration or continuation of registration could not be refused to the assessee. Our answer to the common question, which has been referred in the six references before us is in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. In the circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Let the answer be returned to the Tribunal in accordance with section 260(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (No. XLIII of 1961).
-
1985 (11) TMI 36 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Interest, Loss, Unregistered Firm ... ... ... ... ..... 8 is that the accounting year was up to Ramnavmi. It was only in the assessment year 1968-69 that the assessee showed his accounting year on diwali basis. Accounts were also maintained on that basis. There was no question of changing the accounting year for the assessment year 1967-68. As regards question No. 10, it may be stated that it does not arise out of the order of the Tribunal dated May 30, 1974. It is only those questions of law which are required to be referred to this court that arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Thus, we decline to direct the Tribunal to submit the statement of case for questions Nos. 1 to 7 and question No. 10. Application for Reference Case No. 189 of 1975, therefore, deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, in Reference Case No. 20 of 1976 our answers to both the questions are in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and I. T. Application Case No. 189 of 1975 is rejected. Parties are left to bear their own costs in both the matters.
-
1985 (11) TMI 35 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the penalty is a finding of fact and, as such, no referable question of law arises therefrom. Mr. Ranka relied upon CIT v. Khoday Eswarsa and Sons 1972 83 ITR 369 (SC), a judgment of the hon ble Supreme Court, Addl. CIT v. Noor Mohd and Co. 1974 97 ITR 705 (Raj), Addl. CIT v. Id. Mohammad Nizamuddin 1979 120 ITR 660 (Raj) and CIT v. Sah Swaroop Narain 1980 124 ITR 676 (Raj) which are Division Bench judgments of this court. In all the said judgments, it has been laid down that if the Tribunal records finding of fact for not imposing a penalty under section 271(1)(c), it is a finding of fact, and, as such, no referable question of law arises there from. We are in agreement with the proposition of law laid down in the aforesaid cases and concur with the order dated August 28, 1981, passed by the learned Income-tax Appellate Tribunal for declining to make a reference. In the result, we see no force in the reference application and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (11) TMI 34 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... r the above question of law. From the statement of the case, it is clear that the deduction of Rs. 1,34,000 as provision for gratuity was allowed since it was based on the calculation certified by an actuary having been made on the basis of the award of the Industrial Court made on August 5, 1970. This amount was the liability of the assessee for gratuity as on December 31, 1970, on which the accounting period for the relevant assessment year had ended. There is nothing shown to us to indicate that the deduction allowed under section 37(1) of the Act on these facts, could not have been permitted in accordance with law. The view taken by the Tribunal is, therefore, justified. Consequently, the reference is answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee as under The Tribunal was justified in upholding the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowing the provision for gratuity at Rs. 1,34,000 as an allowable expenditure. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (11) TMI 33 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Cash Payments, Directors, Gratuity ... ... ... ... ..... bunal took the view that the scope of section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood at the relevant time, did not include any cash payment to the employee. It is from this decision of the Tribunal that the aforesaid question has been referred to us. A plain reading of the question makes it clear that the controversy referred to us is the one as to whether a cash payment would fall within the scope of section 40(a)(v) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as it stood at the relevant time. It is conceded by Mr. Jetly that in view of the decision of this court in CIT v. Indokem Pvt Ltd. 1981 132 ITR 125, it must be held that cash payments are not covered by the provisions of section 40(a)(v), which was similar to section 40(c)(iii) which was omitted by the Finance Act, 1968, with effect from April 1, 1969. It was the same Act which inserted clause (a)(v) in section 40. In the result, the question is answered in the negative and in favour of the assessee. No order as to costs.
-
1985 (11) TMI 32 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Appeal To AAC, Export Market Development Allowance, Question Of Law, Weighted Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... ee had duly entered in the return commission and service charges paid to the STC/HHEC. So all the necessary facts for allowing weighted deductions were available on record and the claim of the assessee in these circumstances could not be said to be fresh claim set up at the appellate stage. The power to admit an additional ground to give relief to the assessee when admissible to him on the material already available on the record was recognised long back by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Kanpur Coal Syndicate 1964 53 ITR 225 and the rule reiterated recently in Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd v. CIT 1982 133 ITR 231 (P and H). In view of the said decision of the Supreme Court, the answer to question No. would be self-evident. In this situation, as held in CGT v. Smt. Kusumben D. Mahadevia 1980 122 ITR 38 (SC), it would be futile to get the reference made and the Tribunal rightly declined to do so. For the reasons recorded, this petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
-
1985 (11) TMI 31 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... een determined and not the value separately for the building and the value separately for the furniture and fittings should be taken into account. As already stated, Rs. 8,00,000 is taken as the value for the building and Rs. 2,58,546 is taken as the value of the furnitures, fittings, ambulance, van, etc. The argument is attractive but the point had not been specifically put in this form. However, we think on this ground we need not direct any reference because we find the total value now comes to Rs. 10,58,546 and if Rs. 7,000 is taken as the basis for the purpose of determining the annual rental value, then the multiple arrived at on the basis of such value would be Rs. 11,20,000 (Rs. 8,00,000 x 7/5 Rs. 11,20,000). The difference in valuation is marginal and, therefore, we do not think that any useful purpose will be served by directing the Tribunal to state a case and refer the question. For the foregoing reasons, we dismiss the petition with costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 250.
-
1985 (11) TMI 30 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Donation To Charitable Institution, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... If the entire amount is treated as the amount of donations, then the assessee s claim for relief under section 80G of the Act should be considered. If the whole amount of the above claims is treated as incurred for advertisements in souvenirs, that should be considered as the amount of expenditure incurred for business. Thus, there is no clear finding on the point as to whether the entire amount of the aforesaid claims was treated as donations to the respective institutions who brought out the souvenirs or that they were the amount of expenditure spent for advertisements for the business. In the absence of any definite finding, we would not be inclined to give a finding on the issue and the Tribunal is, accordingly, directed to give a definite finding on this point in the light of the Circular No. 203, dated July 16, 1976, of the C.B.D.T. 1976 104 ITR 52 (statutes). Accordingly, we decline to answer both the questions. The references are disposed of with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (11) TMI 29 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
HUF, Notice, Partial Partition In HUF, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... be no dispute that life interest in an immovable property is a distinct property, but no such situation being available in the present case, this decision is hardly of any relevance. We are, therefore, of the considered view that neither a mere right to appropriate profits without the obligation to share losses was a distinct property nor its partition would be partial partition of the Hindu undivided family property within the meaning of section 171 of the Act. Question No. 3 is accordingly answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. Question No. 4.-Learned counsel for the assessee stated at the Bar that there was never a partition of the running business of the Hindu undivided family and, as such, this question does not arise in the present case. This question is, therefore, left unanswered. Reference answered as aforementioned. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. G. C. MITAL J.-I agree.
....
|
