Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 161 to 168 of 168 Records
-
1985 (11) TMI 8
... ... ... ... ..... x Officer in the assessment order has vividly described the nature of the land and its location. It is close to an Engineering College, the Commerce College and the Arts College, Hubli. It is in the neighbourhood of the new Cotton Market, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee and the Government Industrial and Technical School. It is within the Corporation limits of Hubli-Dharwar Corporation and it has special adaptability for building sites. Quite naturally, regard being had to the nature and location of the land, the assessee wanted to convert it into building sites for the purpose of making profit, and his dealings with the land must, therefore, be construed as carrying on business and making profit. The Tribunal, in our opinion, was in error in holding to the contrary. In the result and for the reasons stated above, we answer the question in each of the references in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. In the circumstances, however, we make no order as to costs.
-
1985 (11) TMI 7
... ... ... ... ..... have no jurisdiction to answer a new question of law which has not been referred to us for decision particularly when the Tribunal declined to refer that question and the assessee having a right to apply under section 256(2) of the Act has failed to do so. This application is, therefore, rejected. We shall now consider the question which has been referred to us for decision. The question is whether the Tribunal was justified in its conclusion that the assessee made a cash gift of Rs. 50,000 and not gift of the property purchased out of it by virtue of the gift deed dated October 26, 1970. Learned counsel for the assessee states that the assessee does not require a decision of the question in the present case, in view of our conclusion that the application, I.A. No. 4900 of 1985, cannot be allowed. It is, therefore, not necessary to answer this question and for that reason we decline to answer the same. The reference is answered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (11) TMI 6
Reassessment ... ... ... ... ..... riginal assessment, etc., had been properly made. Except to this extent, in a case under section 147(b), the assessee has not been given a right to reopen any concluded matter much less a matter in respect of which he had made no grievance even in the original assessment proceedings and where, like the present case, the original assessment on that point was based on the particulars given in the assessee s return itself. We are, therefore, unable to accept the assessee s contention. Consequently, the reference is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue, as under The Tribunal was justified in taking the view that it was not open to the assessee to agitate in reassessment proceedings under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that his share income from M/s. Motilal Dhannilal Tapa, Mandla, was the income of the joint family and was wrongly included in his individual income in the original assessment. There will be no order as to costs of this reference.
-
1985 (11) TMI 5
Business Expenditure, Income, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ur of the assessee. The only other question which remains to be considered relates to the penalty. On this question, in view of the answers given to the above questions, it has to be said that the same may not arise at all for consideration. Even otherwise we are satisfied that there is no contumacious conduct calling for any penal action in this matter. The assessee-firm has placed all the materials before the authorities. Of course, they were contending for a particular position contrary to the view taken by the Income-tax Officer, but, that cannot call for any penalty under section 271(1)(a) of the Act. We, therefore, answer the 10th question also in the affirmative and against the Revenue. There will be an order accordingly. The assessees will be entitled to their costs, one set in T.C. Nos. 1496 to 1501 of 1977, another set in T.C. Nos. 1502 to 1507 of 1977 and a third set in T.C. Nos. 1508 and 1509 of 1977 and 15 of 1978. Counsel s fee in each of these sets is Rs. 500.
-
1985 (11) TMI 4
... ... ... ... ..... ly major part of their income. The petitioners were charged for abetting their co-accused to file false returns before the Income-tax Authorities and thus committing an offence punishable under section 278 of the Income-tax Act. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that there is no material to sustain the framing of the charge against the petitioners. The contention raised is a matter of evidence. The High Court cannot assume the role of a Magistrate. However, in any case, before invoking the inherent power of this court under section 482 of the Code, the petitioners are called upon to show some abuse of the process of court or a case of gross injustice which is apparent on the record. No such thing is indicated in the present case. I think that I should not interfere at this stage. In the circumstances, the petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear in the trial court on December 13, 1985.
-
1985 (11) TMI 3
... ... ... ... ..... or expenses against the passenger receipts was called for and the deduction of Rs. 3,000 was given against the luggage receipts even then to cover any possible additional expenditure by way of coolie charges, if any, paid by the assessee to earn the luggage receipts. On these findings of fact, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is fully justified and there is really no principle of law arising for application to reach the ultimate conclusion. Both these questions are, therefore, to be answered against the assessee. Consequently, this reference is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue as under (1) The Tribunal was justified in not applying a net profit rate to the luggage receipts also. (2) The Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenses claimed by the assessee against the luggage receipts were covered by the expenses allowed against the passenger receipts. The assessee shall pay the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 200, if certified.
-
1985 (11) TMI 2
... ... ... ... ..... r expenses against the passenger receipts was called for and the deduction of Rs. 3,000 was given against the luggage receipts even then to cover any possible additional expenditure by way of coolie charges, if any, paid by the assessee to earn the luggage receipts. On these findings of fact, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal is fully justified and there is really no principle of law arising for application to reach the ultimate conclusion. Both these questions are, therefore, to be answered against the assessee. Consequently, this reference is answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue as under (1) The Tribunal was justified in not applying a net profit rate to the luggage receipts also. (2) The Tribunal was justified in holding that the expenses claimed by the assessee against the luggage receipts were covered by the expenses allowed against the passenger receipts. The assessee shall pay the costs of this reference. Counsel s fee Rs. 200, if certified.
-
1985 (11) TMI 1
Held that the capital asset acquired by the assessee, namely, the technical know-how in the shape of drawings, designs, charts, plans, processing data and other literature falls within the definition of " plant " and is, therefore, a depreciable asset - hence payment made by the assessee to the foreign collaborator was attributable wholly towards the acquisition of a depreciable asset
....
|