|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 168 Records
-
1985 (11) TMI 28 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Burden Of Proof, Failure To File, Jurisdiction To Impose Penalty, Limitation, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... hat the failure was without a reasonable cause. On the contrary, it only means that the failure on the part of the assessee to furnish the return within the prescribed period would not entail the imposition of penalty if he is able to show that there was sufficient cause for not doing so. In other words, although the assessee becomes liable to the imposition of the penalty for not filing the return within the prescribed time, he can ward off the same if he is able to show a good cause for not doing so. The burden of proof, therefore, to show that the assessee had a reasonable cause for not filing the return within the prescribed time would be on him and on the furnishing of that case, it would be for the assessing authority to form an opinion whether there was a good cause or the failure was without a reasonable cause. Accordingly, question No. 3 is also answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. No costs. G. C. MITAL J.-I agree.
-
1985 (11) TMI 27 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... rticular year has to be determined, according to the system of accounting employed by the assessee, and the fact that the liability was still under challenge in the judicial courts has no bearing. The Tribunal, therefore, was not right in law in allowing the deduction of Rs. 1,11,453.42 on account of purchase tax in the assessment year 1971-72 and to that extent, the question is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. As regards the deduction of the purchase tax liability relating to the assessment year 1969-70, the question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, we cannot help observing that as the assessee had, in fact, paid the purchase tax amount, we have every hope that the Income-tax Officer would consider their case sympathetically if approached under section 154 of the Act and relieve the assessee of the hardship likely to be caused to them by our judgment. No costs.
-
1985 (11) TMI 26 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Addition To Income, Offence ... ... ... ... ..... ed the peak credit to the Department only to seek peace with the Department. Apart from this so called admission of the petitioner, the prosecution failed to bring on record any evidence showing that the petitioner had concealed his income in the return and had wrongly verified the same. The prosecution only proved on record the assessment order, the notice issued to the petitioner and the replies sent by him. No evidence was led by the prosecution to show what was the actual income of the petitioner for the year in dispute. The evidence of the Income-tax Officers that the petitioner concealed his actual income remains an opinion of the officers, while in a criminal case, a heavy onus is cast on the prosecution to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. I am afraid that the prosecution has failed in its duty in this case. Consequently, I allow this revision petition and acquit the petitioner of the charge. The fine, if recovered, would be refunded to him.
-
1985 (11) TMI 25 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Exemptions, Industrial Undertaking, Wealth Tax ... ... ... ... ..... g, cutting, etc., of art silk yarn, since in the other case T.C. No. 153 of 1980 relating to the same firm there were facts disclosing those activities, that was relied on and it was held that the assessee was entitled to the exemption claimed. We have verified the records relating to this case and find that T.C. No. 1351 of 1977 related to the assessment year 1975-76 and T.C. No. 153 of 1980 related to the assessment year 1976-77. However, in both these cases, the assessing officer has followed his earlier order relating to the assessment year 1974-75. The present two tax cases relate to the assessment years 1974-75 and 1975-76. The decision in CWT v. K. Lakshmi 1983 142 ITR 656 (Mad), therefore, will squarely apply to these cases also which is only an assessment relating to another partner of the same firm. Accordingly, we answer the question referred in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The respondent will be entitled to his costs. Counsel s fee is Rs. 500 one set.
-
1985 (11) TMI 24 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Developement Rebate, Installed, Plant ... ... ... ... ..... eing hired out by the owner with its business is riot a plant. On the same logic, the expression installed must be construed in the same wide fashion as the expression plant . We cannot go by the popular meaning of the word installation which envisages setting up of a complicated piece of machinery or manufacturing unit for the purpose of production. If that meaning is given, then a number of items would have to be excluded from the expression plant . With respect, we agree with the view taken by the Allahabad High Court (sic), that if a gas cylinder is brought into use for storing gas, it can be said to be installed in the business. For the reasons as above, we answer the question referred in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The learned advocate for the assessee states that the name of the assessee has since been changed to Apeejay Industries (P) Ltd. Let the correct name be brought on record. There will be no order as to costs. MUKUL GOPAL MUKHERJI J.-I agree.
-
1985 (11) TMI 23 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Estate Duty, Penalty, Penalty For Default, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... ve of section 70(2) of the Act. We set aside the said order. We also hold that the impugned order of penalty is illegal and without jurisdiction inasmuch as the penalty proceeding was drawn up and disposed of before the expiry of the date of payment of the first yearly instalment. We also hold that at all relevant times, the petitioner was not a defaulter. In the result, the impugned orders are quashed. We remit the case to the Controller to dispose of the applications of the petitioner under section 73(4) of the Act in accordance with law and reason provided the appeal is still pending. However, if the appeal is pending and the applications are rejected, the Controller shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. If the appeal has been disposed of, it would be open to the Controller to proceed against the petitioner under section 73(5) of the Act. In the result, the petition is accepted, but we make no order as to costs. T. C. DAS J.-I agree.
-
1985 (11) TMI 22 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... he proposed question of law did not arise at all. Even assuming for the sake of argument that one consolidated reference application was not maintainable in respect of these nine cases, it ought to have been treated as proper and valid in accordance with the prescribed form at least for one assessment year because there was no bar in treating the said reference application for a particular assessment year and deciding the same on merits, especially when a common question of law arose in all these cases between the same parties. Therefore, even on this ground, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. In the result, these petitions succeed and are allowed. The impugned order dated July 20, 1983, passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting the reference application on a hypertechnical ground is quashed and set aside and respondent No. 1 is directed to consider the said application on merits in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
-
1985 (11) TMI 21 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Deduction, Firm Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... e decision of the Tribunal in this behalf. In my view, Mr. Jain was fully justified in making the concession. For the reasons stated above, the salary and interest paid to Ram Ratanlal Rajgarhia and Maniklal Rajgarhia had been correctly added while computing the income of the assessee-firm by applying the provisions of section 40(b) of the Act in the assessments of the firm for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1969-70. Further, the Tribunal was right in holding that the amount of Rs. 45,781 received on the devaluation of the rupee was a taxable receipt in the hands of the assessee in the assessment year 1967-68. Both the questions are thus answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The references are thus disposed of with costs. Hearing fee Rs. 250 for each tax case payable by the assessee to the Revenue. 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 20 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Assessment, Other Sources, Status ... ... ... ... ..... signature. Hence, question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. However, in view of my findings relating to question No. 2, the finding on question No. 1 is merely academic. As regards question No. 2, I hold that the Tribunal was not correct in law in holding that the partnership was valid in spite of the fact that the deed had not been signed by the partner who was a minor at the time of coming into existence of the firm but was a major at the time of the execution of the deed. Question No. 2 is, accordingly, answered in the negative and against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. As both parties have partly succeeded, there will be no order as to costs. Let a copy of this judgment be sent under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar to the Assistant Registrar of the Tribunal which shall pass such orders as are necessary to dispose of the case conformably to this judgment. UDAY SINHA J.-I agree.
-
1985 (11) TMI 19 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Appeal To Tribunal ... ... ... ... ..... appellant or the respondent, to raise a new point or new contention provided two conditions are satisfied -(1) No new facts are required to be brought on record for disposing of such new point, and (2) An opportunity is given to the other side to meet the point. Thus, there is a plethora of decisions on the point that a new plea can be taken or can be allowed to be raised for the first time in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. In the light of the above discussion, our answer to the question is that the Tribunal was not justified in refusing to entertain the plea of the Department that the income from the lease rent of the cinema building was assessable under the head Income from other sources instead of under the head Income from house property on the grounds mentioned in the question referred to us. Our answer to the question is, therefore, in the negative, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. The parties are left to bear their own costs of the reference.
-
1985 (11) TMI 18 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... idered this aspect. The total amount paid to the managing director is Rs. 3,500 which by itself cannot be said to be excessive keeping in view the remuneration which was being paid to Prem Chand Bhalla who was put in charge of the business in Bombay. For the reasons as above, we hold that the finding of the Tribunal that the remuneration paid to Prem Chand Bhalla and Joginder Singh were excessive and unjustified is perverse and its conclusion that deduction of part thereof should be disallowed is erroneous in law and perverse. To the extent as above, we answer question No. 1 in the negative and question No. 2 in the affirmative, both in favour of the assessee. We remand the matter to the Tribunal to reconsider the case of Atma Singh. The Tribunal will take into account the evidence on record and, if necessary, take further evidence and dispose of the matter in the light of the observations in this judgment. There will be no order as to costs. MUKUL GOPAL MUKHERJI J.-I agree.
-
1985 (11) TMI 17 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Exemption From Gift Tax ... ... ... ... ..... t only in favour of the son but also in favour of the daughter-in-law and the daughter-in-law is not one of those who can be called a relation dependent upon the assessee for the support and maintenance and, for that reason, the share of the gift to the daughter-in-law should not have been exempted under section 5(1)(vii). This point also was not urged before the authorities below and, therefore, it could not be permitted to be urged here. On the question whether the son was dependant of the assessee, the authorities below found that he was only student in a college and he was a dependant. That is a question of fact and that could not be canvassed here. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the view that the Tribunal is right in holding that the assessee is entitled to exemption under section 5(1)(vii) of the Gift-tax Act. Accordingly, we answer the question referred in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The assessee will be entitled to her costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1985 (11) TMI 16 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Amounts Collected For Charity, Charity ... ... ... ... ..... he principle enunciated in the decisions cited above can hold good only if the facts showed that what was collected was in fact genuinely collected and validly earmarked and held as charity under an obligation to spend the sum solely for purposes of charity. This is a question which requires to be decided with reference to the facts of each case. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal should consider the question as to whether what was said in the year earlier to the relevant accounting year was also true of the present accounting year, and, if so, whether such facts negatived the claim of the assessee. This is a matter for the Tribunal to determine. In the circumstances, we do not answer the question referred to us. We direct the parties to bear their respective costs in this tax referred case. 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 15 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s of lease and advancing money to the liquidator were kept separate from the beginning and not linked one to the other and the assessee was always keeping separate its dual capacity in regard to these two transactions. We, therefore, have to agree with the Tribunal that the loss has to be regarded as a direct result of the assessee s continuing the business of money-lending and the loss is not of a capital nature. It was then contended by learned counsel that, in any case, this is not an allowable deduction in the assessment year 1970-71 as the sale itself was in February, 1969. This contention has been raised ignoring the fact that the sale was confirmed only in June, 1969, by this court. The sale is complete only when it is confirmed by this court and, therefore, the claim for deduction made in 1970-71 is in order. The question referred to is accordingly answered in the affirmative and against the Revenue. The respondent will be entitled to its costs. Counsel s fee Rs. 500.
-
1985 (11) TMI 14 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Delay In Filing Return, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... the Income-tax Officer has wrongly mentioned about the service of the first notice. I, therefore, hold that the second notice was validly issued and served on the assessee and so the Tribunal was not justified in cancelling the penalty by referring only to the first notice which was a defective notice. In view of my above discussions, I hold that the penalty of Rs. 930 as assessed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under section 271(1)(a) of the Act was justified and the Tribunal was not justified in cancelling the penalty order of the Income-tax Officer. The question is thus answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. However, in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Let copy of this judgment be forwarded to the Assistant Registrar of the Tribunal under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar for passing such orders as are necessary to dispose of the case conformably to such judgment. UDAY SINHA J.-I agree.
-
1985 (11) TMI 13 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... rporation. In these circumstances, they may be considered as direct exporters. It is with a view to increase the export and the business, the partners wanted to attend the International Leather Trade Fair at Paris and they did visit Paris. It is not also in dispute that the United Kingdom is the major market for the sale of Indian leather. Normally, goods are sent there for auction and the prices fetched in the auction are only remitted. In the circumstances, therefore, if the partners proceeded to the United Kingdom and Paris, certainly it would have advanced the business interest of the assessee and they could increase the export trade also. We are in agreement with the Tribunal that the object of the trip was to produce conditions or circumstances which would have increased the income of the assessee. In the circumstances, therefore, we answer the three questions referred to us in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (11) TMI 12 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Depreciation ... ... ... ... ..... ys and compound walls in petrol pumps as buildings. In CIT v. Alps Theatre 1967 65 ITR 377, the Supreme Court stated that the word building in clause (vi) of section 10(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (section 32 of the present Act), means a structure and does not include the site. The reason is that there cannot be any destruction of the site unlike in the case of a building. In Ghanshiam Das v. Debi Prasad, AIR 1966 SC 1998, the question whether a structure could be regarded as a building for the purposes of U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act came up for consideration. The Supreme Court stated that in the absence of a statutory definition, the word had to be construed in its grammatical sense, unless there was something in the context or object of the statute to show that it was used in a special sense different from its ordinary grammatical meaning. The court referred to the following definition of building in Webster s International Dictionary (p. 2000)
-
1985 (11) TMI 11 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Assessment, Draft Assessment Order U/S 144B, Unexplained Investments, Writ ... ... ... ... ..... to be suffering from any error which may justify interference in this writ petition. The consequential order of the Income-tax Officer also would, as such, be unassailable in so far as it is consistent with the said order of the Commissioner of Income-tax. We have not found it fit to go into the question whether the assessment order passed by the Income-tax Officer on August 28, 1985, is really inconsistent with or in contravention of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, inasmuch as, if that is the case of the petitioner, he has the statutory remedy to challenge the said order by way of appeal, etc., under the Act and interference with the order of assessment under article 226 of the Constitution of India would not be justified. If authority were needed for this proposition, reference may be made to the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa 1983 142 ITR 663 (SC). In the result, we find no merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
-
1985 (11) TMI 10 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, New Industrial Undertaking Relief ... ... ... ... ..... ment C. F. Plant No. IV . In other words, the assessee itself has treated the new plant as forming part of the existing business. From the facts found by the Tribunal, the only inference possible is that C. F. Plant No. IV was formed by the reconstruction of an existing business and that it is not possible to work out the profit and gains derived from the above undertaking, as the assessee has not maintained separate accounts relating to this undertaking. If that be so, the relief claimed under section 80J, according to us, has rightly been rejected by the Department. For the reasons stated above, question No. 1 is answered in the negative and against the assessee. In the light of the above answer, the second question does not arise for consideration. We, therefore, decline to answer the same. No order as to costs. 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 9 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... pened up and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can examine all aspects of the assessment, not only those which are complained of by the assessee but also those in regard to which the assessee is satisfied and has not preferred an appeal. It is, therefore, clear that under the scheme of the Act, the original assessment order can be modified, varied or substituted at the appellate stage to make it consistent with rule 1BB. We, therefore, do not see any insurmountable difficulty in applying rule 1BB retrospectively. The interpretation which we have put would harmonise the various provisions of the Act and would bring, about a uniform extension of the benefit of rule 1BB to all the assessees. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the benefit of rule 1BB must relate back to the date on which section 7(1) was made subject to the Rules. We answer the question posed for our opinion in the affirmative accordingly. The reference is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.
....
|
