|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 181 to 200 of 241 Records
-
1985 (4) TMI 61 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Change Of Law, Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... s of income is effected by the assessee when the return of income was filed. In this case, the return of income was filed on October 17, 1966, and, accordingly, the Explanation to s. 27 l(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961, introduced with effect from April 1, 1964, will govern this case. In that view of the matter, we answer the first question in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. The Tribunal did not consider the question whether the penalty could be imposed in view of the provisions contained in the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, which governs this case. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal cancelled the penalty following the principles laid down in Anwar Ali s case 1970 76 ITR 696 (SC). We, therefore, decline to answer the second question referred to us. The Tribunal will dispose of the appeal in the light of the provisions of the Explanation to s. 271(1)(c) of the Act as it stood at the material time. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1985 (4) TMI 60 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Charitable Purpose ... ... ... ... ..... he the assessee with the character of a charitable institution. Learned counsel for the assessee fairly accepted during the course of hearing that neither of the above events is conclusive and the question whether the assessee is established for a charitable purpose or not must be examined independently with reference to the provisions of the Act. The registration of the assessee as a society under the Societies Registration Act and the licence granted to the assessee under s. 25 of the Companies Act are only relevant factors in reaching an appropriate, conclusion. In the result, we answer the two questions referred to us in R.C. No. 107 of 1978 in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. We also answer the questions referred to us in R.Cs. Nos. 187 of 1982 and 291 of 1982 in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (4) TMI 59 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... this rule has no other purpose to serve. We are of the view that the Tribunal was in error in holding that the controversy between the parties was concluded by this rule. What we have found on a construction of r. II 5 is sufficient to hold that the assessee s writ petition is wholly misconceived. Even otherwise, on the construction placed by us, it is clear that the rule made by the Board was for purposes of the Act and cannot be said to be beyond the rule-making power conferred on it. We see no merit in the contention of the petitioner to the contrary. We, therefore, hold that the assessee s writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In the light of our above discussion (a) we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue (b) we dismiss Writ Petition No. 2731 of 1979 and discharge the rule issued in the case. In the peculiar circumstances of the cases, we direct the parties to bear their own costs in both the cases.
-
1985 (4) TMI 58 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... additional power would be to augment the productivity of the profit-making structure. In view of the clear enunciation of law by their Lordships of the Supreme Court on the subject, there can be no difficulty in applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard to the undisputed facts of the present case. It may be observed that the answer to the question proposed on behalf of the Revenue to be referred to this court is self-evident and further the matter stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. s case 1980 124 ITR 1 (SC). Thus no useful purpose would be served by requiring the Tribunal to make reference in this case as no substantial question of law arises out of the order of the Tribunal dated June 30, 1978. We, therefore, decline to direct the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, to state the case and make a reference to this court. The application made by the Revenue calling for a reference is dismissed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 57 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Firm, Reference, Registration, Undisclosed Income ... ... ... ... ..... ration is sought is that a part of the income of the firm was not disclosed. As the non-disclosure of the income is not one of the grounds for cancellation of registration under s. 186(1), the registration could not have been cancelled. In any view of the matter, there was no question of application of the provisions of s. 185(5) relating to refusal to register the firm, after the firm had already been registered and the registration has been continued under s. 184(7). As regards the second question, if the firm was in existence then it would be fair to presume that undisclosed income would have been distributed in the same manner as the disclosed income has been divided amongst the partners, as mentioned in the partnership deed. The Tribunal was justified in refusing to refer the questions to this court as no substantial question of law appears to arise from the order of the Tribunal dated December 15, 1983. In the result, the application for making a reference is dismissed.
-
1985 (4) TMI 56 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Tax Act came up for decision before a Division Bench of this court in Dy. Commr. of Sales Tax v. Kelukutty 1978 42 STC 108. Following the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Jullundur Vegetables Syndicate 1966 17 STC 326, this court held that although in partnership law, a firm is not a legal entity but consists of only persons who are partners for the time being, as far as tax law both income-tax and sales tax is concerned, it is a legal entity, and affirmed the view expressed by the Tribunal that in law the same persons constituting two different partnerships must be regarded as two separate persons or assessable units for the purpose of assessment under the General Sales Tax Act. For the aforesaid reasons, we answer the reference in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the seal of the court and the signature of the Registrar will be forwarded to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1985 (4) TMI 55 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Devaluation, Reduction In Liability Due To Devaluation ... ... ... ... ..... d arise only on final adjustment after the utilisation of the fund in India. For the above reasons, we answer the question referred in the negative and in favour of the Revenue. Learned advocate for the assessee has orally applied for a certificate that this is a case fit for appeal to the Supreme Court. He submitted that the following substantial question of law arises from this decision Where profit or loss arises to an assessee on account of appreciation or depreciation in terms of the value of a foreign currency, whether such profit or loss arises at the time when currency is devalued or whether such profit or loss arises when actual conversion from one currency to another takes place ? In our view, the question is of substance and concerns international finance and commerce. Let a certificate be issued under s. 261 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Let the order for issuance of such certificate be drawn up separately. There will be no order as to costs. AJIT K. SENGUPTA J.-I agree.
-
1985 (4) TMI 54 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Question Of Law, Reference ... ... ... ... ..... e was incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business, may be on advertisement or for promotion of business, if it does not exceed the limitation provided in r. 6B of the Rules, then it has to be allowed as an allowable expenditure. Having bestowed our best consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Revenue, we are of the considered opinion that no question of law arises out of the Tribunal s order dated June 15, 1978, and that the Tribunal was right in rejecting the application under s. 256(1) of the Act. The decision rendered on the application under s. 256(1) of the Act cannot be said to be incorrect. As no question of law arises out of the order dated June 15, 1978, passed by the Tribunal, we decline to give any direction to the Tribunal to refer the question of law proposed by the Commissioner of Income-tax in para. 5 of the application. The application under s. 256(2) of the Act is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (4) TMI 53 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Company, Company In Liquidation, Delay In Paying Tax, Interest Payable U/S 220(2) ... ... ... ... ..... ecide when a claim is made by the Income-tax Department under ss. 528 and 529 of the Companies Act. The proceedings for recovery will, however, be hit by the provisions of s. 446(1) of the Companies Act, unless leave of the winding-up court is sought for and obtained prior to the commencement of the recovery proceedings. It is brought to our notice that subsequent to the decision of the learned single judge, the refund due to the company by way of excess tax paid for the years 1981-82 and 1982-83 was adjusted towards the interest assessed under s. 220(2) of the Act for the assessment years 1975-76 and 1976-77. The recovery effected by way of adjustment of interest, without seeking to obtain prior leave of court under s. 446(1) of the Companies Act, is invalid and cannot be sustained. The ITO is, therefore, directed to refund the interest recovered to the official liquidator of the company in liquidation. The appeal is disposed of as above. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1985 (4) TMI 52 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Penalty, Time Of Commission Of Offence ... ... ... ... ..... ed to hold that these decisions do not lay down the correct position of law on the point. We are very much impressed by the forceful arguments of Sri. P. Gopalakrishna Warrier for the assessee, who took us through the relevant provisions of the Act and the following decisions in which we find support for the view we have taken, viz., majority decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in CIT v. Ram Singh Harmohan Singh 1980 121 ITR 381, CIT v. Rahman 1979 119 ITR 475 (Pat) (to which reference does not appear to have been made in subsequent decisions), CIT v. Go Krishna Singhania 1973 89 ITR 27 (All) FB , CIT v. Arthanariswamy Chettiar 1982 136 ITR 145 (Mad) and ClT v. Rameswar and Co. 1981 130 ITR 51 (AP). In the result, we answer the reference in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. A copy of this judgment under the signature of the Registrar and the seal of the High Court would be forwarded to the Income-tax Tribunal, Cochin Bench.
-
1985 (4) TMI 51 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Income, Mutuality ... ... ... ... ..... llenge before us) in the present case, the receipts of the club are not for the mere use of the rooms by way of rent. The receipts of the club are in the nature of payments made to the club for various kinds of facilities and services provided by it. The levy of a composite charge for such provision of facilities of residence and other incidentals cannot be equated to the charging of a house rent or a rent for occupation of a residential building. This is settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in Sultan Bros. case 1964 51 ITR 353. In view of this as well as in consonance with the unanimous view taken by several High Courts on the point with which we are inclined to agree, we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. The reference is disposed of accordingly. Having regard to the fact that most of the decisions referred to above are recent ones, we direct the parties to bear their own costs. Question answered in the affirmative.
-
1985 (4) TMI 50 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... 76 AP 134. Their Lordships held that once an award is made and possession is taken, the lands automatically vest in the Government. The assessee s contention, therefore, is contrary to the provisions of s. 16 of the Land Acquisition Act. Since the title of the owner of the lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act passes to the Government on possession being taken by the Deputy Commissioner under s. 16 of the Act, the date of taking possession becomes relevant for purposes of s. 45 of the I.T. Act, so far as transfer of title is concerned. In this view of the matter, the question of law referred by the Tribunal has to be answered in the affirmative and against the assessee. The question is answered accordingly, and we hold that for the purposes of capital gains tax under s. 45 of the I.T. Act, the transfer of the lands acquired took place on April 21, 1973, and November 8, 1973, and during the previous year ending March 31, 1974, relevant for the assessment year 1974-75.
-
1985 (4) TMI 49 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Capital Gains, Entertainment Expenditure, New Industrial Undertaking ... ... ... ... ..... ssibility of bigger assessees that are perforce required to approach chartered accountants for audit of their accounts engaging them for all their work under the Act that is being satisfactorily attended to by their ITPs. But, that is an inevitable consequence that ensues in entrusting the job to a chartered accountant who has the necessary expertise in the matter. Whatever be the hardship that is caused to the ITPs, the provision is in the general public interest. On the application of the principles enunciated in the cases noted by us earlier, we are of the view that s. 44AB places a reasonable restriction in the interest of the general public and is saved by article 19(6) of the Constitution. As all the contentions urged for the petitioners fail, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. We, therefore, dismiss these writ petitions and discharge the rule issued in all these cases. But, in the circumstances of the cases, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.
-
1985 (4) TMI 48 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Capital Asset, Capital Gains, Personal Effects ... ... ... ... ..... t have an intimate connection with the person of the assessee. All that is required is that the article should be meant for personal use of the assessee in the ordinary course. In the present case, the Commissioner had applied a restrictive test not warranted by section 2(14) of the Income-tax Act. He has held that because these articles were not normally in daily use, they could not be considered as personal effects. This appears to be an incorrect test because all personal effects need not be used daily. So long as they are meant for personal use, they will have to be considered as personal effects. Since the decision of the Commissioner is based on a misreading of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of H. H. Maharaja Rana Hemant Singhji v. CIT 1976 103 ITR 61, there is an error apparent on the face of the record. In the premises, the rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. The respondents will pay to the petitioner the costs of the petition.
-
1985 (4) TMI 47 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Dividend Received From Domestic Company, Special Deduction ... ... ... ... ..... me of the assessee would be eligible for deduction under s. 80M. We have referred to the provisions of s. 199 and r. 30A only to emphasise that the dividend income is not only assessable in the hands of the registered shareholder but it can be assessed also in the hands of the beneficiary or any other person who may not be a registered holder of the shares. The Additional CIT who passed the order under s. 263 only directed the ITO to withdraw the relief allowed under s. 80M of the Act and to revise the assessment. The Additional Commissioner did not direct exclusion of the dividend income from the assessments. Once the dividend income is included in the assessment and assessed, the assessee is entitled to all the benefits flowing from such inclusion under the relevant provisions of the Act. For the reasons aforesaid, we answer both the questions in this reference in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. There will be no order as to costs. DIPAK KUMAR SEN J.-I agree.
-
1985 (4) TMI 46 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... e appropriate provision by prescribing an aggregate ceiling. Section 40A(5)(a)(i) read with s. 40A(5)(c)(i) of the Act does not refer to any aggregate amount of deduction although two different contingencies are provided therein. If, the interpretation as suggested by the Revenue is accepted, the employer would defer the payment of the gratuity or any other sum payable to an employee on cessation of his employment to the subsequent accounting year to get out of the mischief of the ceiling prescribed under s. 40A(5)(c)(i) of the Act. This cannot be the intention of the Legislature. If a provision of a taxing statute is reasonably capable of more than one interpretation, that interpretation which is favourable and beneficial to the assessee must be accepted, even if it results in his obtaining a double advantage. This is a well accepted rule of construction. For the reasons aforesaid, I entirely agree with My Lord that the question should be answered in favour of the assessee.
-
1985 (4) TMI 45 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Business Expenditure, Disallowance, Entertainment Expenditure ... ... ... ... ..... or providing food to outside constituents was not in the nature of entertainment expenditure in law and, therefore, the entire expenditure could not be disallowed under s. 37(2B) of the Act. The questions referred to us in Reference No. 9 of 1977 are answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The answer to question No. 2 is limited to the extent we have hereinabove specified, namely, that the assessee is entitled to messing expenses which are not entertainment expenditure within the meaning of s. 37(2B) of the Act, but what quantum should be allowed will be decided by the Tribunal keeping in view the finding recorded by the AA So far as Reference No. 42 of 1977 is concerned, both the questions referred to us are answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The parties shall bear their own costs of these references. Let the answers be returned to the Tribunal in accordance with s. 260(2) of the Act.
-
1985 (4) TMI 44 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... before us that the concerned assessing authority would be instructed that if the return along with the requisite audit report is filed by the petitioners in all these cases within a period of four months of this order dismissing the petitions, then no penalty under s. 271B or interest under s. 139(8)(a) would be charged from them for the period of delay. In our opinion, this would also be the fair course to adopt since by virtue of the stay order of this court in these petitions, the petitioners were not required to get their accounts audited till the petitions were decided by this court against them vacating the stay order. It is, therefore, directed that no interest or penalty will be recovered from the petitioners for delay in filing the return, if the same is furnished within four months of this order. Consequently, all these petitions are dismissed and the interim orders stand vacated. No costs. The outstanding amount of security, if any, be refunded to the petitioners.
-
1985 (4) TMI 43 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
House Property ... ... ... ... ..... nnot be availed of by the assessee for establishing his title. It is only a weapon of defence. Apart from that, s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable if there is an agreement in writing signed by the assessee or on his behalf, from which the terms necessary to effectuate the transfer can be ascertained with reasonable certainty. In this case, admittedly, there is no writing and, therefore, s. 53A of the Transfer of Property Act could not be availed of by the assessee. Be that as it may, the assessee and his two brothers are the joint owners of Park View Hotel each having 1/3rd share. The Tribunal was not right in holding that the entire income from the property is liable to be assessee in the hands of the assessee. The question referred to us is answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. There will be no order as to costs of this reference. Let the answer be returned to the Tribunal in accordance with s. 260(2) o the Act.
-
1985 (4) TMI 42 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Capital Gains ... ... ... ... ..... ement of the consideration has been made by the assessee or that the amount disclosed as consideration in the documents of sale was less than the amounts actually received by the assessees by way of consideration for sale and so one of the requirements of s. 52(2) was not satisfied. In this view of the matter, the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the provisions of s. 52(2) of the I.T. Act were not attracted to the present case and in directing the ITO to compute the capital gains on the basis of the consideration declared by the assessees in their return, subject to the condition that the capital gains arising out of the sale of lands made by Shrimati Geeta and Smt. Sushila Devi and Pradyuman Singh should be considered as income in the hands of Yaswant Singh and Mahendra Singh, respectively. In the result, the question referred to us is answered in the affirmative, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The parties are left to bear their own costs.
....
|
